New at Reason

David Weigel | June 14, 2006

Nick Gillespie interviews author (and former Reasonoid) Jeremy Lott about hypocrisy, and why America and the world need more of it.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

← I Could Tell You Why It's… | Main | Reporters Booted Off Guantanamo →

See all 6 comments | Leave a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|6.14.06 @ 12:11PM|#

From Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age":

�You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices,� Finkle-McGraw said. �It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others�after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?�

�

�Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others� shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour�you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy.

�

�We take a somewhat different view of hypocrisy,� Finkle-McGraw continued. �In the late-twentieth-century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception�he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it�s a spirit-is-willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing.�

�That we occasionally violate our own stated moral code,� Major Napier said, working it through, �does not imply that we are insincere in espousing that code.�

�Of course not,� Finkle-McGraw said. �It�s perfectly obvious, really. No one ever said that it was easy to hew to a strict code of conduct. Really, the difficulties involved�the missteps we make along the way�are what make it interesting. The internal, and eternal , struggle, between our base impulses and the rigorous demands of our own moral system is quintessentially human. It is how we conduct ourselves in that struggle that determines how we may in time be judged by a higher power.� All three men were quiet for a few moments, chewing mouthfuls of beer or smoke, pondering the matter.

|6.14.06 @ 12:28PM|#

A comment from a psychologist will need to come next.

|6.14.06 @ 12:29PM|#

I am almost done reading this book (arrived yesterday) It is a great read. I would recommend it highly.

|6.14.06 @ 5:24PM|#

Ehn. Hypocrisy props up too crap. For one, the damned drug war is loudly supported by Boomers who merrily used drugs years ago.

|6.15.06 @ 1:10PM|#

I've only read the article and not the book, but the thesis seems to shoot wide of a more significant problem in favor of a minor one.

Okay, so IF I make public pronouncement X in concrete terms and find it difficult to stick to it in practice, hyprocrisy gives me a way out. Here's the thing though. Reconciliation between speech and action can be brought about in two ways - you can bring your actions in line with your spoken principle or you can modify your speech to encapsulate your actions. The real problem, it seems to me, is that we assume that if I say X and do Y, my failing is in 'living up' to my speech. What if I said something stupid?

I would argue that 99.9% of the time, that is in fact the case. You don't want to bring actions in line with spoken principles, because your spoken principles are by necessity less than exhaustive. It is very easy to say something in absolute terms. Our language is full of words like "never" and "unacceptable". Once uttered, our modern media records these things for all time and holds you to them. The concept of an evolving thought process is completely missing from the discussion. Witness how judges are interrogated in confirmation hearings. Public debate is dominated by 'gotcha' journalism.

So, from where I'm sitting, elevating hypocrisy to virtue status is bad in that it makes it easy to say stupid things in absolute terms. What I'd much rather see is a book about the virtues of thinking things through in public. It is much more important to understand someone's thought process throughout the Iraq conflict, and what the turning points were than it is to know what someone said one time in a speech in 2002. I'd love to see a guy when asked about the war say something like, 'Well, I'm predisposed to dovishness, and initially I had strong reservations about the whole adventure for x, y, z reasons. As time went on, I saw Saddam go down and I could see some utilitarian benefit there, but still the costs were just too high ...'

You never get a peek at thought process because it is unacceptable to make thoughtful public pronouncements. Broader acceptance of hypocrisy seems to me to be a recipe for broader acceptance of policy by simplistic catch phrase.