Does hypocrisy affect a person’s point?
Is the strength or weakness of a person’s point affected by whether the person is a hypocrite?
It seems to me that a person’s argument is independent of the person’s own life choices.
I mean, I can have the argument “Hammering nails into one’s arm is wrong”, and then go right ahead and hammer nails into my arm. Am I a hypocrite? I think so, but isn’t my point still correct?
That depends whether it is a comment or a command.
If I condemn drinking, while heavily imbibing myself, it creates a double-standard. If I can’t follow my own advice, why should anyone else?
Actually, I think it always matters. I can’t think of a situation where suggesting one thing while practicing another can do anything other than undermine one’s position.
Hypocrisy can also be manifest as a form of lying.
If one says “a human being doesn’t begin to live at conception” and then states plausible “rational and logical” reasons in support of their conclusion, but what they really mean is “I committed abortion and I don’t want to think of myself as a killer”, they are being hypocritical about the reason they state the former quote by withholding the latter truth of their matter.
This form of hypocrisy often rests on the foundation of self-deception.
They are first being hypocritical with themselves and second with others.
Accurately naming hypocrisy is relevant with respect to discussion.
Many seemingly “rational and logical” reasoning can sometimes only be initially known by some others as false with respect to the truth when it is first pointed out that the presenter is being hypocritical.
Their hypocrisy then casts a shadow on their “reasoning” which puts an analytical focus on their “reasoning” that can then frequently reveal their “reasoning” to be false in and of itself.
Interesting. So let me ask a question: If I think the most honorable way to live is to be a Shaolin monk in Tibet, I can’t make an argument for it unless I am actually a Shaolin monk in Tibet?
I mean, come on, philosophy is often a discussion of the highest possible ideals for humankind. You mean I actually have to practice anything that I want to assert is higher ground? That seems unrealistic.
Do I have to run into a building on fire to claim that firemen are heroes?
No more posts? Come on, surely everybody has a position on this topic.
How about a few more votes? (currently 2)
Sorry, lost track of it.
I suppose you have a point and that it boils down to negative vs. positive applications. A positive application, “This is best” is different from a negative application, “This is wrong”.
That said, it isn’t just about looking up but also about double standards. It is one thing for you as a private citizen is America to say that Shaolin monks are the most virtuous, it is quite another to have be a member of the Red Guard and make the same claim. It is one thing to say, as a neutral party that firemen are heros, but quite another to say Firemen are heroes while actively cutting their funding.
So, no. Hypocracy and double-standards always undermine one’s point. If one is simply neutral it is a slightly more nuanced perspective.
Edit: And by ‘nuanced’ I mean ‘worthless’. An opinion is meaningless unless it is tied to some sort of action. To say, “Firemen are heroes” is empty rhetoric until one does something in relation to firemen. Indeed, even in that case, inaction would seem to suggest that the individual lacks conviction of what they are saying.
Because it may still be condemnable. What the orator does shouldn’t affect the veracity of the statement.
I’m a hyporite and proud: When I smoked, I still told the kids it was bad. Me doing it didn’t make it right. And my self-destructive tendencies don’t lessen the truth of my advice.
Let’s say I post a comment saying: “Apples are healthy for you because the have a lot of vitamin D”.
And let’s say I am also an orange producer who is actively trying to get apples banned from the country. Does that make the comment any more or less true? What if I was Johnny Appleseed? Is the point now more true?
You talked about firemen. Can’t I say that firemen are heroes, but (let’s say they were making 345,000 dollars a year) I thought it was reasonable to cut their salaries (a little)? How is either position undermined by the other?
The Red Guard example probably wouldn’t happen, but even if it did, why does it affect the point “Shaolin Monks are honorable for reason A, B, and C”. Shouldn’t we just focus on whether or not A, B, and C are valid points? To say that a person has undermined their points because of something they did in their own lives seems like a distraction. It almost seems ad hominem.
I guess I’m going to need some more examples of how hypocrisy undermines a point. 
Hypocrisy is an expression of strength. Stalin could have placed laws against murder, and then go ahead and perform a mass purge on people that would be protected by the same murder statute that was put in place. Hypocrisy is simply a construct set up by weaker spirits to condemn their rulers.
It could be that the strength or weakness of a person’s point would not affected by whether the person is a hypocrite; assuming there is adequate independent proof that what they are saying is true and we are not depending on their expertise, character and integrity.
We often operate in areas where we don’t have the time, or energy, to independently prove that what another person says is true - so we depend on that person’s expertise, character and integrity.
In other words we operate based on trust and when someone says one thing and does another, trust suffers.
I respect people who have the courage of their convictions and practice what they preach.
On the other hand - we are all hypocrites in some way or another. I think the important thing is to be aware of that hypocrisy and honest about it when dealing with others.
There’s a story about Gandhi being asked by a young boy’s mother to talk with her son to convince the youngster that he should stop eating so much candy. Gandhi agrees to talk with the boy, but then doesn’t show up for some time. The mother asks him why, and he replies, “first I had to stop eating so much candy myself.”
Only three posts since 2004?? Thanks for honoring the thread with your reply. I greatly enjoyed it!
The hypocrisy of a person’s statement does not affect the merit of a person’s statement, only the merit of the person stating.
I know everything. For proof of this, ask me.
If a fat person talks about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating are his opinions wrong because he fails to live up to them?
He’s not being hypocritical but human.
Hypocrisy would be if he pretended that he did live up to them.
I look at everything from the Greek perspective they taught me in school. What is true is effected by the three types of arguments the Greeks identified, logos (logic), ethos (character), and pathos (appeal to emotion). From that perspective the power of persuasion is weekened by a weakness in their ethos, or character, however, the logic remains true regardless of the character of the person. That does not mean it’s not true, just less persuasive.
So to answer your question, it has a serious impact on whether someone can persuade others, but does not make it untrue.
I guess that is the difference between theoretical and practical knowledge. While theoretical knowledge is value-neutral, so it remains independent of the speaker, practical knowledge is value-charged, so it is contigent upon the speaker.
If I say “Smoking is unhealthy” that is value-neutral and distinct from “You shouldn’t smoke”.
I’m with Justjack. If a financial advisor told you to sell off all of such and such a stock, while she was buying up as much as she could afford, her argument would be weakened if she were the only source of knowledge you had on the matter. But if you had independently verified her reasons and confirmed that the stock would probably plummet in the near future, you would still be justified in selling your stock.
I suppose the argument doesn’t suffer, but the premises suffer. The argument, given the premises, remains as valid or invalid as ever. But the truth value we place on the premises, i.e. our willingness to take the premises as givens, may change. So our conclusion may change without the argument ever having suffered.
I suppose that I am just talking about logos (logic) then. That the logic of the argument is unchanged by hypocrisy.
Persuasion by character and/or emotion I find to be undesirable always. Just as a person’s character would persuade you for an argument I find just as undesirable as using one’s character to argue against an argument. It’s ad hominem. It’s attacking (or admiring) the person instead of the argument.
Anyway, I’m glad to see such a lively debate on this question. The poll stands at 50-50; 6 Yes, and 6 No. I wonder if anyone’s position has been changed. That’s a problem with these polls; you can’t change your vote once it’s been cast. That would be a nice feature.
Cheers.
Hmmm does this have anything to do with someone advocating not having children and then someone asking the advocate whether they themselves didn’t have children?
If one separates their emotional state from their intellectual state when evaluating an argument, then the behavior of the individual shouldn’t reflect on the strength of the argument. In other words, the person is merely a medium by which to transmit information. The value of the information should be gaged by its own merits, not by the merits of the medium. Its like if I sent you a fax with certain information, and you said I don’t think the information (which was transmitted successfully) on this paper is valid because the fax machine is old.
On the other hand, if one doesn’t separate their emotional state from their intellectual state, like most people don’t because they are so organically intermeshed, then the medium is very important. Lets use the prior example, suppose the fax machine was archaic and the words came out very very badly (like a 5 year old wrote it), but in a readable state. Someone might just say I shouldn’t take this argument seriously because look at the writing, its horrible and it looks like a 5 year old wrote it.
In other words, its like the old adage, don’t judge a book by its cover. Imagine a book containing the secrets of cold fusion power, with only a giant dildo on the cover. I think many people might throw away the book and not take seriously all the formula’s contained within it.
Thats my 2 cents worth.
Yes!
For those who don’t know, Warshed replied to a post of mine on the “A stupid question” thread saying “Great post, i love it” but then added “I hope your not a hypocrite though who has children.”.
Which lead me to reply, “I guess I think that hypocrisy doesn’t really affect the person’s point (hey, that could be a knew thread…).”
And here we are with a cool new thread. =D> And I like that the poll is split down the middle. That means it’s a genuine controversy.
Argumentum ad Hominem tu queque is not a valid counter argument unless the person who offers the argument does so with himself as a premise or conclusion. In which case the whole argument is invalid.
If, for example, someone offers an argument such as:
“Working out and dieting is great for one’s health, just look at me!”
and in the past 2 weeks I happen to have had half a dozen heart attacks, then that argument is invalid.
But if an argumenter offers an argument in which he himself does the opposite of what he’s saying, but has in no way have himself as a premise or conclusion in the argument, then the argumenter’s hypocrisy does not in any way affect the argument’s validity or soundness.