It isn't hypocritical to think one way and to act another way altogether.
Subject: Inconsistencies between Philosophical Principles and Actions
Intro: No matter what you think, to some greater or lesser extent, you're a hypocrite; we all are. The realm of the philosophical and the realm of the real don't always mesh as they should. What's more, the more you've thought these issues through, the more you're likely in conflict. Think about it; no matter how much you try, it's likely you're not quite as 'authentic' as you'd like.
- What are your inconsistencies between your philosophical principles and what you actually do?
- How do you resolve such inconsistencies?
Examples: To give an idea where I'm coming from. Here are some of mine:
- I'm glad that more people are able to live longer lives but I also think we have too many people on the earth.
- I love my house, but no one needs this much room. I wouldn't give it up, but the materials and resources involved in it's building and upkeep doesn't justify two people.
- I have a car and enjoy the independence of being able to go where I want - when I want. I also think that automobiles (manufacture, disposal and emissions) are one of the largest sources of environmental destruction there is.
- I value life. I believe that no form of life should unnecessarily be pained or destroyed. Last night our neighbor's dog wouldn't shut up; I don't think it would have taken much encouragement to actually choke it to death.
- Material "things" in my life - from the vacuum cleaner to our crock pot - has made living easier, giving me time to pursue what's more important. It's also undeniable that what's "easier" isn't better; that some physical labor or 'want' is a good thing.
- I've toured factories where the jibbering guide boasted at length on his factory's level of automation; football-field sized buildings where now only 2 or 3 people can be seen. I think about the jobs lost but also realize that this level of automation keeps that place in business; and in so doing, produces much of what I want and need.
- I love vegetables; I also know what types of labor practices are used to bring these to my local store. I'm not inclined to grow them myself, but I buy them nonetheless.
- I count the invasion of Iraq as one of the most unjustified, immoral things my country has ever done. But through it all, I've dutifully paid my taxes, obeyed the law and didn't quite make that move across the border.
I believe we ALL are riddled with inconsistencies between our philosophical positions and actions we take every day. I also believe it's important to somehow recognize and resolve such inconsistencies; even the acknowledgment can have some benefit. Some of this has been covered in this thread.
Anyone up to a confession?
I think you should prove your accusation to be true, or you should retract it. What makes you believe that everyone is a hypocrite? And what makes you believe that everyone engages in hypocrisy on a daily basis?
I also happen to agree with someone who posted earlier that your list is not all a list of hypocrisies. But I don't feel like going through the list to analyze each one for someone who has insulted me and everyone I care about, without providing any evidence.
What you're seeking are those things with which we have cognitive dissonance over, right? That is, two contradictory beliefs. Well, yes, we all do have these inconsistences, and we try to reconcile them with rationalization. It's human. Very interesting, though, you're right. Here's one of my more pronounced ones:
I love to eat meat and eat meat daily, but, on some level, I think it's (normally) wrong to kill animals.
But do not confuse this with hypocrisy, which is pretending to hold beliefs which one does not actually hold. There is a difference, and many of your examples are examples of cognitive dissonance, not hypocrisy.
I think all he means is that, at some point in our lives, we go through coginitive dissonance (read my post #45). We hold two contradictory beliefs. It is natural, and is not an insult to you or your family. I think you're being a little sensitive.
But Khethil is wrong in saying that this is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to holds beliefs for things which one does not hold beliefs for. With cognitive dissonance, the person genuinely holds the two contradictory beliefs (which is why it gives you that awful feeling, and then you attempt to rationalize).
If you were to change it to, "most people", instead of "everyone", I would not object to it. But I think it is doubtful if you or anyone else has the necessary evidence to make the jump to "everyone".
As shown in Figure 1, hypocrisy appears to be a fundamental bias in moral reasoning: Individuals perceived their own transgressions to be less objectionable than the same transgression enacted by another person.
Evidence of hypocrisy at both the individual and group levels adds to the growing view of the context-dependent nature of moral reasoning (cf. Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006). At a basic level, preservation of a positive self-image appears to trump the use of more objective moral principles.
I can think of a couple of motives for insulting everyone in such a manner. One is religiously motivated, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Romans 3:23). I hope I need not now say that quoting a Bible verse does not make a statement true, and that what we are now dealing with is a prejudice in favor of believing it which has infected Christian societies. And another motive is for people who are hypocrites and inconsistent; if they can persuade themselves that everyone else is just as bad as they are, then they will not feel inferior to other people. I have heard men describe all men as inherently unfaithful, in an effort to justify their own philandering. The thing is, the claim is false that all men are inherently unfaithful.
For me, philosophy has a lot to do with trying to overcome this disjunction.
What are your inconsistencies between your philosophical principles and what you actually do?
Sure. But people don't object to statements like "people enjoy sex" or even "men like women".
If it's a basic part of human nature it's not objectionable to say "everyone".
Moral Hypocrisy ? Psychological Science
Best I can find on short notice.
Both of those are importantly different in that no quantifier is specified (i.e., "everyone" is not specified). However, if the quantifier were added, both would be false. And people do object to such things. Go to a gay pride meeting and say the second one, and see if there are any objections to the claim.
I want to thank you for actually producing evidence of something. However, it is not even close to showing that everyone is hypocritical. First, it uses only 26 subjects, and then:
"Two subjects in Condition 1 were removed from analysis for acting altruistically or using the randomizer..."
In other words, according to the study, not everyone was hypocritical, even among their small sample of 26 people.
And that is my point; although it may be that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, that does not justify the claim that everyone is. I have no objections to someone claiming that most people are hypocritical or inconsistent, as that conforms to my experience. But I do object to the claim that everyone is, which does not seem to conform to my experience. (I write "seem to conform" for the obvious reason that I do not know all the thoughts of those people with whom I am acquainted.)
Generalizations are efficient when they are left in the general. But, somehow when we go on to applying them to each and every person we meet, even if it is ALL humans, they turn into an injustice, because then we are prejudging an individual.