Hypocrisy, Accountability, And Denialability.

[Pessimist]

Ethics and morality both seem to have a incomprehensible rejection of acknowledging hypocrisy so much that no philosopher on moral ethics has ever shed light on the subject.

Why is this the case?

Most likely it is denialability on the part of the moral philosopher given the facing reality that hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world along with corruption that follows in contrast to a amoral world where nothing of the sort exists.

By denying hypocrisy as a inevitable deterioration of morality or ethics flawed existence of double standards the moralist escapes all accountability on the fallibility of morals.

By denying hypocrisy and corruption as a inevitable result of morality or ethics the moralist is allowed the illusional perception of justification along with their perceived infallibility on the subject of morals.

It makes perfect sense as to why moralists refrain from focusing on the corruption or hypocrisy of their own doctrines.

By understanding the level of corruption and hypocrisy within moral doctrines the myth of man's moral agency lays shipwrecked along with the discussion of altruism.

By understanding inequality as a direct result of corruption and hypocrisy which are both extensions of morality's flawed mechanics or double standards the myth of equality is obliterated on it's own face in that we can clearly see that all people are indeed not equal.

[Aristoddler]

here is what I think;
There are many facets of morality that have nothing to do with ethics, and visa versa.
When people speak of ethics, or morality...separate or together makes no difference, because they're assuming that hypocrisy isn't part of the equation.

If I tell you that stealing is immoral, then you take it at face value that stealing is immoral. You wouldn't analyze that any further and project hypocrisy into it, since a hypocrite stealing is the same thing as anyone else stealing. The hypocrisy doesn't play into it at all. Stealing is the subject, and hypocrisy is simply a contradiction of someone's actions compared to their portrayed teachings.


I can be as immoral as I want. The hypocrisy doesn't matter in this case.

If I claim to be moral yet become a hypocrite, then in this case I become unethical in the example that I am now lying...since to claim to be moral, yet be a hypocrite would suggest that I am in fact immoral...which is unethical to claim.
In this case, the three terms and stages are all related, whereas before they were not.

To be ethical, yet be a hypocrite is something of a trick in itself since the terms are not parallel. I can be ethical and a hypocrite, since being ethical is subjective in definition and hypocrisy is definitive.

It makes perfect sense as to why moralists refrain from focusing on the corruption or hypocrisy of their own doctrines.

Can you give an example of this? I think I misunderstand what you're trying to say here.

[Solace]

I'm not so sure that a moralist would have so much a problem with denying hypocrisy, as with simply admitting that he's wrong.

Aristoddler, if we assume that the hypocrite claiming to be moral is, in fact, immoral, can we assume that this person is, in fact, a hypocrite? After all, if he is immoral, then claiming to be moral is not, in his (un)ethical code, hypocrisy. I think then that, in order for one to consider oneself a hypocrite, one must be, automatically, moral. Which brings us back to Pessimist's assertions, that a moralist will deny hypocrisy. Therein the denying becomes immoral, and, in turn, makes the moralist an immoralist.

Am I spouting something that is even remotely comprehensible here?

[de_budding]

I'm a moralist and don't believe it is immoral to practice hypocrisy- does that turn the tables in any way? I would also say corruption is just a result of immorality or human error and the immorality I accept as a moralist and just judge as immoral. I don't really see how ethics or morality rejects hypocrisy as much as acknowledge whether it is moral or not.

Dan.

[Arjen]

I think a more realistic view on the term "ethics" (or morality, which means the same thing for our intents and pruposes) is called for. Ethics is the part of morality which tries to devise a code of conduct and morality is the conduct one applies. So morality is derived from ethics.

Looking at the definitions from this point of view a code of conduct is merely something dictating how one should behave. If the code of conduct makes no mention of "hypocrisy" apparently one can decide to be a hypocrit. In that sense a code of conduct acts as a "rulebase" to define what conduct (or morality) is "good".

Because codes of conduct are mostly propagated by leaders or governments (as opposed to philosophers who merely create theories) any "rulebase" would contain the possibility to measure things in two standards: the governmental standard and the people standard. That is why any such "rulebase" of how one can conduct contains hypocrisy.

This "morality" is unmasked by Immanuel Kant's ethical philosophies. Explained very shortly his philosophy comes down to the thought that someone should ac only in such a manner that one can wish everybody would act in such a manner. The double standard of hypocrasy is eliminated by that. It also allows for growth in people because it is no longer the act, but the intention to act which is "judged". At the very least Kan't morality eliminates all negative intent known by the actor to be negative. When the actor realises something is a negative intent the own behavior is quickly changed because one should not act in a manner that one would not want to be treated oneself.

[Solace]

So apparently Kant's grand revelation is just the Golden Rule.... which works well in theory, but, let's face it, no one truly practices.

Btw, telling us that ethics and morality are the same thing, and then giving us two different meanings and claiming that one is derived from the other, makes no sense.

People rarely, if ever, choose to be a hypocrite... they don't wake up in the morning and say, "Hey, I think today I'll be a hypocrite!" It sort of happens unintentionally. That's kind of the point, I should think.

You may be right about hypocrisy occuring because of double standards, it stands to reason for sure, but the double standard has to be a perversion of a single original standard, and not two seperate original standards. To say that by one standard (governmental) I am wrong, but by the popular (people) standard I am right, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just makes me righteous in the eyes of the people while the government puts me in jail.

[Arjen]

Originally Posted by Solace

So apparently Kant's grand revelation is just the Golden Rule.... which works well in theory, but, let's face it, no one truly practices.

The people not practicing it are people who will, in all their actions, take from others to gain themselves. As a result this group is looking behind every tree out of fear that others are like them. "Guilt" is imprinted on their minds and that is exactly why they continue to act in such a way: to fit in again. T do this the appearance of "normality" must continue and therefore a "mask" is created to show the world a spotless face.

I think the reality is that moral skepticism and the categorical imperative are practiced by a lot of people, just not by a lot of people with power. The thing that really upsets me is that every person in the west is a person with power. There are not many who do not take from others.

Btw, telling us that ethics and morality are the same thing, and then giving us two different meanings and claiming that one is derived from the other, makes no sense.

I don't think you understand what I was saying. Ethics are a means to devise a code of cunduct, but it is often use to refer to codes of cunduct. Morality refers to a code of conduct. In that sense they are the same for all intents and purposes in this topic.

People rarely, if ever, choose to be a hypocrite... they don't wake up in the morning and say, "Hey, I think today I'll be a hypocrite!" It sort of happens unintentionally. That's kind of the point, I should think.

Hypocrisy is a choice. One choses to deny something to others. After a while though the human psyche collapses. It cannot cope with the imagined "guilt" and the hypocite in question starts believing his (or her) own lies. This is a very delicate process and I do not ask of you to understand this. I do hope you realise the possibilty of this happening and the likelyhood of it. I also hope you realise that an involuntary hypocrite does not spring form the ground, but has quite serious mental trauma.

You may be right about hypocrisy occuring because of double standards, it stands to reason for sure, but the double standard has to be a perversion of a single original standard, and not two seperate original standards. To say that by one standard (governmental) I am wrong, but by the popular (people) standard I am right, doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just makes me righteous in the eyes of the people while the government puts me in jail.

I understand your point of view, I would like to say that opinions do not really matter though. The opinions of the state or of the poeple are irrelevant. What is relevant is truth. The problem is that nobody knows what is actually true. By throwing opinions into people's faces it only gets harder. On top of that a lot of people simply "adopt" one of the opinions being thrown in their faces because nobody knows what is true anyway.

But to get back to my point: opinions have noting to do with truth at all.

[Solace]

There aren't many who take "in all their actions" as you put it, but not taking once in a while, and then taking at other times, doesn't mean you're practicing the Golden Rule. It's a rule, if you break it once, if you take even once, you're not practicing it. For the matter of it, people don't treat each other as they would have others treat them most of the time, let alone once in a while. If they do on the planet that you're living on could you please transport me there via your futuristic teleportation device?

An involuntary hypocrite has quite serious mental trauma!? What the heck are you talking about? It almost gave me mental trauma to read that.

[Arjen]

Solace,

I am not stating a rule. Rules are on what to do. This is about how to do things. Nothing is "sanctioned" or "forbidden". I am only pointing at what happens when acting with "goals" in mind. The thing about "goals" is that it presupposes a certain "hypothetical" "good". As if money would be "good" for instance. That is the common factor.

Concerning the people who actually look at how they do things I can only say: open your eyes. Those people do exist. I think it isn;t important what others do thouhg. It is important what you do. When considering what others do you are making an evaluation and in that way thinking about "goals" again. The foundations of such actions are hypothetical because there is no real way in which anyone can check to see if the chosen "goal" actually is "good".

The reason I said that involuntary hipocrites are suffering from quite serious mental trauma is because hypocisy consists of saying one thing and doing the other. Where knowingly doing this stipulates my argument that these people actually know that what they are doing isn't exactly nice, unknowingly doing so stipulates denial of such acts. Any action done involuntarily either supposes an outside force or an inside force strong enough to overcome the person acting involuntarily. The fact that this can exist in any person points directly the workings of the mind of that person. A sane person does not voluntarily go against himself. Something inside that person has taken the shape of something compelling that person to act accordingly. This takes place in the mind and it is exactly this what is called psychosis.

[Solace]

Making such an arbitrary assessment as that, though, includes the possibility of the outside force that could act upon the involuntary hypocrite, because you're not distinguishing the two in your generalization that an involuntary hypocrite has mental trauma. Politicans, for instance, are the very acme of involuntary hypocrites caused to become so by outside forces. They point the finger at the other guy who doesn't keep a promise to his constintuents, then when the time rolls around for the accuser to make good on his own promises, he finds that political constraints force him to go back on his own word. He becomes, involuntarily, a hypocrite. But I don't think we can chock that up to psychosis. If ya give it a little thought, I'm sure you can come up with many such similar examples.

Concerning the other stuff, about how people treat each other, all I can say is you have a much more optimistic view of people than I do.

Oh btw, saying "treat others as you would have them treat you," is saying "what" to do, not simply "how" to do it. If the what is giving them a loaf of bread, then you'll probably do it a polite manner... the polite manner being the how. But if the what is stabbing them with a knife, then there's probably no how that is going to turn that into a good gesture. We are talking about what to do here, not how to do it. It isn't the how that determines the deed, it's the what. So there's no point in mincing words over it.