"In a mad world only the mad are sane." - Akira Kurosawa

***

A favourite retort of those accused of various iniquities (or who just like to make people squirm) is that their accusers are guilty of hypocrisy - that they apply their principles inconsistently and imperfectly (and often not to themselves).

Seemingly, then, it is better to be consistently evil than to be inconsistently good (or inconsistently evil). Truly, le mieux est l'ennemi du bien. Or, as an extension of the Chinese proverb "十步笑百步" (the soldier who has retreated 10 steps from a battle laughs at one who has retreated 100 steps as being a coward), "千步笑一步" (the soldier who has retreated 1,000 steps from a battle laughs at one who has fought long and valiantly but has now retreated 1 step as being a hypocrite).

Cries of 'hypocrisy' tend to be a last ditch defence, used when one cannot find anything else to pick on: for example, by supporters of "Asian"/Third World Values. While a few points may be scored debate-like, just as scorched earth tactics detract from your enemy's gains but do not win you the battle (even if the war is a different story), charges of hypocrisy do not win an argument for you.

It is also important to note that those who fall back on the crutch of 'hypocrisy' usually implicitly acknowledge that what their opponents are advocating or fighting for is ultimately good thing.

All this is not to say that hypocrisy is a good thing. Obviously minimising it is an aim we should all strive for, but not at the aim of having praiseworthy principles.

A hierarchy of virtue might then rank, from best to worst: perfect adherence to virtuous principles you profess (Lawful Good), partial adherence to virtuous principles you profess, not doing anything (True Neutral), partial adherence to contemptible principles you profess and total adherence to contemptible principles you profess (Lawful Evil).

(Perhaps obvious) caveats:

- the more your moral righteousness, the more justifiable claims of hypocrisy become
- the less the disparity between your sins and those of the people you are criticising, the more justifiable claims of hypocrisy become. And if it goes in the opposite direction, people will just tell you to go and die (e.g. Nigeria lecturing Singapore on high corruption)

Excerpts from 2 articles on hypocrisy (saying pretty much the same things in a different way):


Ask a Philosopher: What's wrong with hypocrisy?

"Everybody loves hypocrisy, which accounts for their going on about it so much. Granted, hypocrisy is most loved in others, where it offers an opportunity for sensations of moral rectitude in the onlooker. But that's all right, because most of the people in the world are, as it happens, other people.

... When hypocrisy does exist in my own case, this amount's to the entirely proper tribute paid by myself, and my vices, to virtue. It is perfectly stupid of these self-righteous hypocrisy-detectors to go around pointing out that such and such an imperfect/fallen/vicious/evil person was inconsistent in their imperfection/degradation/vice/evil in virtue of the kind and just things that they did or said on other occasions. It is as if they would find someone who was consistently vicious and evil more praiseworthy — which is perfectly absurd.

If there is any justice in the many attacks upon hypocrisy, this resides entirely in the justice of a specific attack upon some specific evil, not in the absurd charge of inconsistency in that evil. For instance, if a priest has been thieving silver we are entirely right in responding angrily to this. Where we might be on dodgy ground, however, is in entertaining the thought essential to the accusation of hypocrisy, namely that if the offender had been a leader of some satanic cult, the theft would have been somehow less a theft. Several different angers may be getting mixed up here. We have a right to be angry about any misplaced trust — but the proper target of this anger ought to include systems and institutions which have permitted the trust to be misplaced. Worryingly, this might include being angry at ourselves, and anyway impersonal things are difficult targets for anger to hit — so it is much easier to be angry at the personal other. So it often happens that already feeling great anger at the offender for the specific offence, we also throw onto him, willy-nilly, this additional floating anger about the failure of our misplaced confidence in him. Much of this confusion is expressed in the angry cheated-trust cry of 'hypocrite!', with it's utterly perverse implication that a consistently evil man would have been more praiseworthy.

David Robjant"


In Defence Of Hypocrisy

"It is a sad indictment of a society when the only safe target of anything approaching universal condemnation is hypocrisy. Hypocrites trip themselves up, condemn themselves out of their own mouths by contradicting with their actions what they claim to espouse as ideals. Criticising hypocrisy, then, seems all well and good. The only problem is that now we have a social climate where it is impossible to embrace any moral position without fear of being branded as 'loony' if you cling doggedly to the position, or 'hypocritical' if you fall short of it. The result is that we are left with a cynics jamboree and a tendency towards moral paralysis. In a perfect world, moral paralysis would not be a problem, but a perfect world it is not, and as soon as you so much express concern the snipers are out. It is much safer to abdicate all moral responsibility than step into the danger zone - and the danger zone is huge. If you fall short of the ideal you espouse, you are a hypocrite. It follows, therefore, that in order never to be a hypocrite, it is safest not to espouse any ideals you may have any difficulty living up to - result; said cynicism and moral paralysis...

Those of us who aim high and fall short will always be hypocrites, while those without beliefs, ideals or any expression of concern gain commendation every time they show gentleness or perform the slightest noble act."