The Hypocrisy Paradox

[Mason Riggle]

I did not write this, but I found it very interesting-

"“Hypocrisy” has two, similar, main meanings. The first is claiming (directly or indirectly) to adhere to some moral standard that one does not in fact adhere to. The second is the practice of criticising in others what one does oneself.

I propose that according to the first definition (though not according to the second) it is impossible to admit to hypocrisy, as the very act of admitting to hypocrisy absolves one from that hypocrisy.

I often see it proposed that we have an obligation to ‘call out’ abuse whenever we see it. Usually, this means abuse only towards people that the person (the one telling us to ‘call out’ abuse) doesn’t like, and especially not abuse by people they do like. This is hypocrisy, as they are claiming a moral standard that they do not really believe in.

I claim that we must always be reasonable, consider the evidence, and remain civil at all times. Do I always manage to adhere to this myself? No. I am a hypocrite.

However, by admitting that I am a hypocrite, I am no longer a hypocrite, as hypocrisy requires that I claim or imply that I hold to a particular moral standard myself. My admission means that I am denying that I hold to such a moral standard, and therefore I cannot be accused of hypocrisy after such an admission. In fact, the admission retroactively becomes false, and it might be claimed that making a false admission is the act of a hypocrite."

Thoughts?

[StateOfMind]

17 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

 My admission means that I am denying that I hold to such a moral standard, and therefore I cannot be accused of hypocrisy after such an admission. In fact, the admission retroactively becomes false, and it might be claimed that making a false admission is the act of a hypocrite."

Where did you read this, link?

second of all

in the same logic i cannot be accused of raping if i admit that i'm a raper??

[Gesundheit]

Language is itself a hypocrisy and a betrayal of reality, so the hypocrisy paradox is inescapable.

[Mason Riggle]

29 minutes ago, StateOfMind said:

Where did you read this, link?

second of all

in the same logic i cannot be accused of raping if i admit that i'm a raper??

1) https://skepticink.com/notung/2014/11/13/the-hypocrisy-paradox/

2) no, because of the first definition of hypocrisy, by admitting to being a hypocrite, you are not a hypocrite.   A similar paradox is 'this statement is false'.. if it's true, then it's false. 

 

[StateOfMind]

13 minutes ago, Mason Riggle said:

1) https://skepticink.com/notung/2014/11/13/the-hypocrisy-paradox/

2) no, because of the first definition of hypocrisy, by admitting to being a hypocrite, you are not a hypocrite.   A similar paradox is 'this statement is false'.. if it's true, then it's false.

very interesting, i don't have any opinion on this but just as i was rumbling my thoughts...

is it because we think that a statement is supposed to be/speak truth...

like saying "the sky is blue", its either gonna be a true statement or false. wen we read "the sky is blue" we go up in our head to check whether it's true or not. in the end it's just a statement.

but to read something like "this statement is false" we get this illusion where we objectify the statement and give it an identity because the statement is kind of self-aware? - because the statement is talking about it's self - and so it seems like this self-aware statement is saying something that contradicts its self! it's like a male human being saying that he is a cat!.

lol i think i did pretty good on this one