Hypocrisy on the part of a speaker does nothing to invalidate the speaker's point. A chain-smoking doctor has every right to tell you to quit smoking.
Yet, in a lot of political discussion, if you criticize someone in the other party for doing something wrong, the defense is not "No that wasn't wrong," or "He didn't actually do (or say) that, but "Someone in your party did something just as bad, or worse." And the proper answer to that would have to be "So what."
8 comments:
The accusation of hypocrisy is the second least influencial persuasion after insulting someone. I enjoy doing both. But, "so what" as Victor writes, it's the shallow world of politics which is an emotional relief from the daily drudgery of taking care of an elderly Aunt, serving a church with complicated people, taking care of clients with demands for their business (and sometimes neurotic personal problems). Everyone needs a good hypocrite to mock, for me it's the Dem's.
I don't like people who want to punish others for something they don't think they should be punished for. Clemency for me but not for thee.
Much different than a chain-smoking doctor and more in line with the type of hypocrisy that Jesus castigated the Pharisees about.
And the proper answer to that would have to be "So what."
No. The proper response should be "both were wrong". Otherwise both sides will continue to do wrong. I don't think this is that hard.
Regarding the chain-smoking doctor. He is certainly acting like a hypocrite by continuing to smoke, but has he told his patient that smoking is harmful and that both he and the patient should quit? Or did he tell his patient that it was only harmful to the patient and not to him (the doctor). In the first scenario the doctor is relating a scientific finding, but he has a failure of the will to act on it. In the second, he is using non-scientific special pleading to excuse himself from having to take action.
It seems sometimes hypocrites have a failure of the will. Other times they engage in special pleading which is a fallacy.
Hypocrisy can be an appropriate answer to a claim of moral superiority. Should a person in group A claim group B has poor character for performing some action, it offers no defense to point out group A engages in similar behavior. However, should that person weave in the claim that group A is superior to group B because of that behavior, the existence of this behavior in group A is sufficient rebuttal.
If the doctor says that drinking three glasses of water a day is bad for your health, yet drinks three glasses, he is not only a hypocrite, he's a nut.
We should distinguish between truth and persuasion. The chain-smoking doctor is right that we should stop smoking but is less likely to persuade us. The 'So what?' reply is rational in itself but hardly compelling, given the way we think, and this casts some doubt over the rationality of making it.
The OP did say "in a political discussion" so truth and rationality are not requirements.
This is interesting. If the FBI had an infiltrated the 9/11 group of terrorists would they have tried to prevent the attack, or just let it happen?
Post a Comment