Moral Paradox.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world.

In a amoral world there is no hypocrisy.

Perhaps you are correct? I live in an 'a-moral world' and hypocrisy is a meaningless term. (I do, of course, understand the meaning (dictionary).)
Perhaps, instead, hypocrisy is 'meaningless' in that I do not commit the intellectual/emotional 'error' of seeking 'consistency'. Each 'moment' of this existence is quantumly unique.

@Pessimist,

In a perfectly moral world, wouldn't hypocrisy be nonexistent?

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

In a perfectly moral world, wouldn't hypocrisy be nonexistent?

no.
you're auto-categorizing hypocrisy as a malign act that is suited to an immoral act.

hypocrisy would be as conflicting to an amoral person as beer is to Canadians. they have no moral structure or ethics to speak of, or to hold, so what is hypocrisy to an amoral person, really?
speedbumps if anything at all...unless they're concerned of their reputation in some way.

@Pessimist,

Well, I see a problem with the OP's statement: What is ethical in a moral world? Are we teleological, deontological, or something else?

Wouldn't hypocrisy not exist in a perfectly deontological world where hypocrisy was unethical? Such a world is not attainable, but just a thought.

Also, what does your (Aristoddler's) argument have to do with a perfectly moral world? In a perfectly moral world, wouldn't there be only moral people?

@Pessimist,

yes, but hypocrisy doesn't always have anything to do with morality.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

yes, but hypocrisy doesn't always have anything to do with morality.

Agreed. If I say I'm a Red Sox fan and then I go root for the Yankees, that's hypocritical but not amoral. If I say I like to torture animals and then I go torture animals, then that is amoral but not hypocritical.

Incidentally, murder wouldn't be illegal in a world with no laws, but that's no more or less profound a statement than the OP.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Agreed. If I say I'm a Red Sox fan and then I go root for the Yankees, that's hypocritical but not amoral. If I say I like to torture animals and then I go torture animals, then that is amoral but not hypocritical.

Incidentally, murder wouldn't be illegal in a world with no laws, but that's no more or less profound a statement than the OP.

My point is that in certain ethical systems, hypocrisy is immoral no matter what the circumstance (i.e. Kant's categorical imperative), and if the OP's "perfectly moral world" would follow one of these ethical systems, then there would be no hypocrisy.

Of course, I think the OP was more trying to sound philosophical than actually be philosophical, so this debate is somewhat pointless.

@Pessimist,

Semantics go a long way in some circles, Kaju.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world.

In a amoral world there is no hypocrisy.

Perhaps we should (or could) come about this from a different direction.

The second statement would be true, if we deemed Hypocrisy as amoral. I understand Hypocrisy (without jumping to my dictionary) to be defined as actions or words which are contrary to what the the actor (or speaker) professes is correct, right or proper.

Although I wouldn't violently disagree with the notion (that one should speak and act in accordance to what they profess to be right and proper), I don't believe they are "joined at the hip". I could easily forsee a cogent ethical set where there are times when hypocrital actions or statements could rightfully be judged "moral".

... Not sure I'd want to try and come up with one though Surprised

@krazy kaju,

krazy kaju wrote:

My point is that in certain ethical systems, hypocrisy is immoral no matter what the circumstance (i.e. Kant's categorical imperative)...

Not to get too far off on a tangent here....

... I don't think this is quite true. Recently having read the Metaphysic of Morals, I have buzzing around in my head the notion that (loosely paraphrased) something is right, if by my will alone that action should be come natural law.

Examples are really tough to come up with and horribly easy to debunk. But let me try Smile

Junior is 4 years old and asks how mommy died. I want to (and believe that all people should) tell the truth; in accordance with the categorical imperative I should do this for junior. So I tell him that mom was decapitated accidentally during a industrial accident while she was having improper relations with one of the maintenance worker's power tools. Obviously (to me anyway), these aren't details a 4-year old should hear; they're brutal and serve no purpose. But if I'm to be true to my own belief systems (i.e., not be hypocritical) I'd tell the truth. In my particular ethical set, and one I believe to be reasonable and humane, I'd "pad" the truth or outright lie to the lad, to spare him unnecessary pain and trauma from such a graphic narrative.

I suppose, in this ad-hoc example (many apologies), I could theorize that I am not being hypocritical since, were I to be a youngster, I wouldn't want someone to traumatize me with unnecessary details. But I don't think Kant allows us this (to fudge in respect of the devil's details). Perhaps this is a editorial on the categorical imperative itself, but I think it applies to hypocrisy and immorality. I believe that depending on the situation, with the details properly weighed, there are indeed times where hypocritical actions or statements which can be perfectly moral.

@Khethil,

I'm not quite sure if I fully understand what you're saying, Khethil. According to Kant's categorical imperative, the only moral thing to do would be to tell the little child the truth.

Now, you seem to be approaching it through a loose utilitarian approach, saying that telling the child the truth would be immoral. I'm not going to debate what is and what is not moral in this thread, but what I am saying is that according to some ethical systems, hypocrisy is always wrong, and that in a perfectly moral world (if we accepted that one of these ethical systems were the only true and universal ethical system), there would be no hypocrisy.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world.

In a amoral world there is no hypocrisy.

Pessimist, Smile

Wonderful statement, though that is pretty much a wrap I should think.

"To god all things are well and good, only to man, somethings are and somethings are not." Heraclitus Smile

@Pessimist,

this might be a little offf topic. noone really has a problem with hypocracy untill they have thought to judge the hypocrit.

@aaron the red,

aaron the red wrote:

this might be a little offf topic. noone really has a problem with hypocracy untill they have thought to judge the hypocrit.

Or, if they have been the victim of one's preachings.

@Aristoddler,

Originally Posted by Pessimist

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/PHBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif

Hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world.

In a amoral world there is no hypocrisy.

Hi All!

:)Morality is not something natural, there is no need for it to be, other than man's wish to be safe in a world of indifference-- nature, Red In Tooth And Claw." Byron I think? Morality is the house we've built to keep out nature.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

no.
you're auto-categorizing hypocrisy as a malign act that is suited to an immoral act.

I think I agree with you, but Aedes explanation was clearer to me. Maybe it's the term "auto-categorizing". What does that mean?

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Or, if they have been the victim of one's preachings.

which gives them a reason to judge the hypocrite.

@Pessimist,

Pessimist wrote:

Hypocrisy can only exist in a moral world.

In a amoral world there is no hypocrisy.

You're really throwing terms around here. What is the difference between a moral and amoral world? That doesn't even make sense to me. Morality is the differentiation between the concepts "good" and "bad" and then a conformity to a set of rules. We are a species that demands morality in order to exist - we know no other way but to judge and classify in order to make sense of the world around us. So, for us, there would be no such thing as an amoral world.

Therefore, hypocrisy will always exist, and it's hard to even fathom a world in which there is no "good" or "evil". If you want a glimpse into what an amoral world is, start with quantum physics.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

You're really throwing terms around here. What is the difference between a moral and amoral world? That doesn't even make sense to me. Morality is the differentiation between the concepts "good" and "bad" and then a conformity to a set of rules. We are a species that demands morality in order to exist - we know no other way but to judge and classify in order to make sense of the world around us. So, for us, there would be no such thing as an amoral world.

Therefore, hypocrisy will always exist, and it's hard to even fathom a world in which there is no "good" or "evil". If you want a glimpse into what an amoral world is, start with quantum physics.

Zetherin,

Morality is a product of society/s, there is no morality to nature, the term amoral, means just that, it is beyond good and bad/evil. In nature there is no judgement, nature is red in tooth and claw, and that is just the way it is. Morality is a myth we have created to govern ourselves, its a tool if you like, and differing somewhat from one culture to the next. The indifference of nature to the survival of man, is amoral and is probably the stimulus for the formation of society itself. At one time, nature was the common enemy, today it is the wounded mother of our destiny. Our amoral behaviour towards her, has brought us to the edge.:eek:

Philosophy Forum

Moral Paradox.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know