Hypocritical?

Remove all ads!

Here's the general question - is it hypocritical/fense-sitting/indecisve to disagree with some right/action/event, but still belive that people have the right to do it? The exact example that spawned this thought was a previous post in which I stated that I am personally opposed to abortion, but agree that women should have the right to make such a choice. As I clearly don't want this to turn into another abortion thread, let me make it clear that it doesn't have to just be about abortion. Here are a few other examples:

1. Thinking that gay sex is pretty gross, but thinking that if two people love each other, what happens in their bedroom is none of my business, and that gays should be allowed to marry too.

2. That driving an SUV is ecologically irresponsible, but supporting the right to own one.

3. That drug use is bad, but since pot isn't much worse than cigarettes and alcohol, that it should be made legal.

4. Diagreeing on the reasons we got involved in the War in Iraq, but supporting the troops who are over there.

Or pick your own - this list is by no means comprehensive. Base question - can you be morally/ideiologically opposed to something and still support said action, without nullifying your own opinion?

 

Point #1 is not hypocrisy. Let's say you love apples but hate plums. You don't care if other people eat them or not but you don't eat them yourself. The same way, for some people, sexual orientation may be an aesthetic choice between men and women, leaving the person with a certain measure of disgust towards gay sex but no intention of prohibiting it for consenting people whatsoever.

Point #2 is a question of prioritising. It puts the individual's right to own whatever car he likes above the need to avoid the ecological disadvantage a SUV creates.

Point #3 is a question of limits. For a certain person, drugs might be too much, while cigarettes and alcohol still within the borders of his taste.

Point #4 is a bit tougher but there is a distinction between supporting the leaders who make a decision and supporting the soldiers who have no choice but to carry it out and what they do is their job. There are various reasons why and ways in which people disagree with the war, ranging from total opposition to believing that it was a bad choice to start the war but what is done is done and one needs to move on. Much depends on the way in which the troops are supported. Someone who opposes a war but assists in the draft or helps the war effort in any way is a hypocrite. Someone who believes it is wrong to fight in the war but tells the troops they are doing the right thing (so long as the right thing is not understood following orders to the letter but as fighting in the war per se) is probably a hypocrite. Someone who opposes the war and whatever is done but keeps telling the troops how proud he is of them and the good job they are doing, such a person is indeed a hypocrite in this respect. Someone who merely tells the soldier to take care, stay alert, keep alive and return home when the war is over, such a person is not necessarily a hypocrite. Or a person who tries to improve the quality of life of soldiers by selling them food, garments or whatever else they might need which is not a tool of warfare.

We would have an example of hypocrisy if someone who struggled for abortion rights and actively supported movements to legalise abortion said that he privately believed abortion to be murder. To keep consistent that person would have to admit that he believes that murder should be legally allowed in some cases and not many people are willing to admit this.

Also, someone who opposes death penalty on the grounds that no human has the right to take any other human's life but supports abortion rights, even if he privately believes that foetus is a human being, such a person is a hypocrite.

 

Yes, you can. Actually, I think that in many cases you HAVE to. If you cannot support ANY view that goes against your own personal beliefs, you're no better than the zealots who blow up buildings/people/mass transit systems because they disagree with these people's opinions or with what those buildings represent.

For example, I, personnally, am morally against any form of organized religion, for many reasons that do not belong in this thread. However (and I --and I believe you too, Aldeth-- basically said the same thing in my brief contribution to the "gay marriage in Canada" thread), I would be the first to protest if anyone wanted to take away people's right to practise any religion they choose of their own free will.

The same argument can be used in almost every case, except that I would never support anything that goes against another person's rights. For example, I am strickly against any form of smoking, and I do NOT support people's so-called right to smoke in public areas, because it infringes on non-smokers' right to breathe smoke-free air.

 

I agree with you on all points, Aldeth. You don't have to be opposed to everyone doing something in order to opposed to it personally. If other people want to make bad choices (all except #1), it's their right and their prerogative to do so. As for example #1, it's an entirely different culture and mindset; we have no right to say what they can or cannot do with each other, no matter how personally distasteful anyone might find it.

Stick to your guns. (That's just an expression, so don't get any ideas. ) You've got an open mind, and nothing is more useful or necessary in the melting pot that is Earth. It's less fence-sitting than it is fence-building. These are my affairs, and those are yours. Whatever you want to do on your side of the fence is fine with me, so long as it doesn't spill over onto my side.

 

No, it's not hypocritical at all. What's hypocritical is to demand the right to live in accordance with your own beliefs but to refuse someone else the right to do exactly the same thing just because their beliefs are different from yours. I think regular readers of AoDA will recall having heard me say that once or twice in the past.

As for Case #3, I think all three substances should be treated the same way, be it legal and licensed or illegal. Never look a revenue-stream gift horse in the mouth.

 

I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

Aldeth,

If any of those warrant the title hypocrite, then I proudly were the badge.

In fact, welcome to the Libertarian Party! One of the core beliefs of the party is that moral judgments should not be part of government, policy, or law. All laws should be based upon the protection of our rights (Libertarian = Protection of Liberty). I don't personally like homosexuality, but I don't want anyone telling me what I can do in a bedroom with my wife, so I have to respect the rights of others to their lifestyle. I don't like abortion, but I cannot ask that others adhere to my beliefs, as there is no impact to my rights. I don't like drugs, but yet laws that make them illegal do nothing to protect any of my rights, and all it does is give the gov't more power and size. I drive a Neon, not because I can't afford a larger car, but because I put a ton of miles on my car, and I see no reason to waste money and resources to drive a vehicle that wastes resources (mine and the environments), but yet I support others who have need of such vehicle to purchase one if the can afford it, as it does nothing to protect my rights.

Some other examples:

I think that what Cindy Sheehan is doing is pathetic, but I support her right to do it.

I hate flag burning, but I can't stand the idea of an amendment to the Constitution to make it illegal.

I think that OJ Simpson is guilty as hell, but I do not support any changes that were proposed to our judicial system after he was acquitted.

Many times people use the accusation of hypocrisy as a straw man to try to win a debate (especially certain conservative AM talk show hosts). As Felinoid said, stick to your guns (of course I differ in that I believe in that statement figuratively and literally ) and understand that in keeping an mind open we all will be more likely to realize when we are actually being hypocritical, and that realizing this fact enables us to understand issues better, and assists is in our ability to grow emotionally and intellectually beyond what we are today.

 

I wanna play too!

Not hypocritical at all. It would be hypocritical if you condemned gay sex, but then secretely engaged in gay sex yourself. And we all know you do, sweetboy.

As has been said, this is a matter of priorities. We all have the right to, for example, watch "My Super Sweet 16" on MTV, quite possibly the dumbest show on earth, but I'm well within my rights to think you're a tool for doing so. And we all know you do, sweetboy. (sorry! couldn't resist)

Again, hypocrisy would be bitching about how polluting your neighbor's Range Rover is as you drive by in your Hummer.

This, to me, has always been an issue of inappropriate classification. IMO, if alcohol is legal, so should Marijuana be. It takes about 10 fat joints to kill the same amount of brain cells as there are in a single shot of Jack Daniels, so the "it's more harmful" arguement doesn't hold water. And while Marijuana is an intoxicant, so is alcohol and again - it's legal to, with legal repercussions for abuse and irresponsible behavior, of course. Reason suggests that either alcohol should once again be prohibited (which, let's be honest, ain't gonna happen), or pot should be legalized and governmentally regulated like alcohol and tobacco.

In short, I believe the only reason Marijuana is considered a drug is because people incorrectly (and widely) believe it to be far more harmful than it actually is.

This isn't hypocrisy at all. In fact, one can be considered a cause for the other. One of my biggest reasons for opposing the war is BECAUSE I love and respect our soldiers, and don't want them to be used, made fools of and have their lives wasted.

 

It is not hypocrisy to disagree with something but support the right of others to do it or believe in it. I disagree with a lot of things that others believe in but they have the right to those beliefs.

 

t:

I think the real reason that pot is illegal when alcohol and tobacco aren't is that the latter two industries ahd many years to become entrenched as profitable business with strong lobbies, and they didn't want to see any of their power diverted to a new player at the table.

Well, looking at just how hypocritical that stand would be, I guess my statement isn't so very OT after all...

 

Not hypocritical, but fence sitting. I believe that it's fair that people's sex lives should be private. That means not thrown in our faces. That's why I don't support Gay Marriage. If they want to have gay sex, then it's none of my business, but don't go changing one of the keystone principles of soviety o accomodate them. To be a hypocrite, you would have to oppose homosexuality but practice it privately.

Again, fence sitting. Hypocricy would be opposing them but driving one anyway.

I believe that the drug laws need to be overhauled. While it shouldn't be illegal to smoke a joint, if you supply alcohol, tobacco or weed to a minor, it should be the same charge as if you supplied them with crack cocaine...

Your beef there would be with George W, not with the soldiers. They are risking their lives to support their country (for this discussion let's assume so), and need all the support and prayers that they can get!

Apparently, this is where much of the debate comes into play. Some think only distasteful, others think morally wrong. Aldeth falls into the first group, but I find myself in the second.

Pure, unadulterated Liberty is not a sledgehammer to enforce silence from those that oppose the right to do something they disagree with. If you are only free to support one side of an arguement, then are you really free?

But where is the line drawn there? Does one person's right to do something trump another's right to disagree? This is starting to happen, so the notion of freedom needs to be looked at more carefully...

While they may believe that, it's a load of Law is about the morality of the state.

I just call that fence sitting...

 

*groan* I was dreading the moment Gnarfflinger got a hold of this one. Personally I'm surprised that he even uses the phrase fence-sitting, considering that fences have fenceposts, and ... um ...

Speaking of hypocritical, have you watched any movies, or TV, or read the newspaper? Heterosexual sex (and marriage) is EVERYWHERE! You talk about THEM not throwing it in OUR faces!?! How about US not throwing OUR lifestyles in THEIR faces, hmm???

For once some things we can agree on!

Damn it Gnarf, you broke my hypocrisy meter! The needle nearly took my eye out when it flew past!!! *grumble* It's gonna take me half an hour to get that damn thing out of the wall. *grumble*

So your beliefs about the law are correct, while the Libertarians' are BS. Please explain.

 

@Gnarfglinger--I am confused.

Does this mean I should not support your right to disagree with me? Please clarify.

 

The irony of course is that this is also a core belief of the liberal party.


As for the topic at hand. I would consider none of those hypocracy. I've never really understood the "supporting soldiers", personally I think they chose their job and knew the risk, and threfore in my opinion don't really deserve any more or less respect/support than the average working man but it's still not hypocracy.

Wanting pot to be leagalised would not be hypocracy either but an interesting turn of the question would be if it's hypocracy to be against legalisation of pot and yet support the legalisation of alcohol and tobacco products?

[ August 20, 2005, 14:52: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

You have some point there, of course. I don't appreciate the way sex is singled out and removed from the context of the totality of human life or the totality of a relationship between two people.

However, when it comes to throwing homosexual lifestyle specifically in gay people's faces, I think we can't really speak of anything like that. It's hard to speak about the vast majority throwing anything in any minority's face when it's just being too loud about its own mating rituals. It's a bit like with democracy. While everyone's vote counts the same, it's not like every party counts the same because those who have more votes have more to say, get more attention, inflict more of a noticeable presence.

@Gnarfflinger:

I get your point and if we were talking about John Kerry kind of public support and private opposition, that would be fence sitting. But there's a number of things on which we decide on principle or according to certain values and yet we still respect people's choices or at least their right to forge their own fortune, make mistakes and so on. It depends on many factors shaping our opposition to an idea. For example, I may support candidate X and defend my neighbour's right to vote for candidate Y. However, if I believe it's a wrong thing to vote for Y, I won't walk around telling people that my neighbour is doing the right thing voting for Y. Of course, he's doing the right thing voting for whomever his conscience dictates -- this is the right thing to do. For this I will commend him and I will to stick to his principles, stay true to his beliefs and find his peace in life. But this doesn't mean I support his choice. If I supported his choice, I wouldn't even invalidate my own one -- I would simply make choosing pointless. It would be like going to one church but telling everyone that all religions are equally good. If this is what you mean, then I agree.

That someone has weird, strange beliefs, doesn't make him a hypocrite yet, if he's at least consistent. For example, I don't understand the notion of being opposed to abortion but supporting "women's right to choose". Whenever a person tells me that he supports the right to choose but is personally opposed to abortion, I ask him, then, for what reason he is against it. If it doesn't mean he considers abortion wrong, after all. After some time in the grinder of my questions, the person typically admits that yes, he believes abortion is wrong. Why then? In favour of choice rights, he opted against the stance that a foetus is a human being deserving the same protection of his life as an adult. Again after some time, the person typically admits that privately he isn't so sure about the foetus being just a lump of cells. After I play the devil's advocate for some time, the person actually lectures me on why the woman should keep her child. I say fine, that's what I was saying in the beginning. So, given all these factors, I ask, why are you still in favour of abortion rights? Because women should have the right to choose... So then I ask, if you believe it's wrong to eradicate the foetus, does it mean you believe people should have the right to choose to eradicate other people without consequence? The person says no. I further ask if perhaps we should remove the penalty for homicide and let God sort it all out in the afterlife and leave it up to life itself to correct people's mistakes and abolish penal laws altogether, the person also says no. And this is the wall I can't cross with such people. I again get a "but abortion is different" or "but women should have the right to choose," which becomes a mantra. And this is true hypocrisy. On one hand, the person wants to stay true to his values and stand up for what he believes to be right and just. On the other hand, the person wants to be cool and progressive and to conform. The two cannot be reconciled with each other and so the person hides further behind his shield of elusive excuses and explanations.

In order to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the same person would have to say that it's not up to him to lay down laws and dictate other people's lives, tell them what they should do and so on. But even then, there are still problems. First, being opposed or partial to something and voicing the opinion publicly is not dictating what people should do. Influencing the legislation is. However, supporting abortion rights is... what else than taking a stance and inflicting it on other people, such as fathers of aborted children after the manner of Roe vs Wade? I suppose some measure of consistency is still achievable but it's indeed walking on top of a thin line.

I suppose the only consistent stance would be that it's up to the society to define what is murder and one shouldn't inflict his beliefs on others. Still, there are many cases where a person might believe he's in his right when killing someone, so for a person who believes a foetus to be at least somewhat human, it's hard to claim that a foetus is up to the mother to keep or abort but, for example, certain violent family heads should still go to prison for killing their insubordinate offspring even if they believe they have every right to. The person will probably still stand up for victims of racists who believe them to be inferior and thus free to harass and abuse. Heck, the same person already stands up to pro-lifers outlawing abortion, even if they believe they are doing the right thing. So why support abortion rights but not the other things? I believe it still comes down to conformism. Conformism is a very important step on the road to hypocrisy, if not already a step too far. I am actually less troubled understanding people who are neither publicly nor privately opposed to abortion. The only exception I can think of is a belief that while abortion isn't murder, it's still an improper and all too convenient way of avoiding responsibility for one's actions. I don't agree on all levels (I believe abortion is materially a homicide but the people involved are not always of the mind of a homicide when they do what they do). If I'm not mistaken, that's the belief dmc shows on these boards and it's pretty consistent.

[ August 20, 2005, 14:58: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The line is drawn when two lives do not intersect except for Person A not liking the way Person B chooses to live. If those two lives have no impact on each other in any way, neither should have the right to influence the other's choices. Trying to make a complete stranger behave in a particular way just because that's what YOU think is right is gross interference. What happened to the just leaving the other guy alone and ignoring him? Why is it necessary to go out of one's way to interfere? Why seek out opportunities to be offended?

It's like the legal notion of standing - someone who is not impacted by a court case does not have the right to participate in it. So should it be with freedoms.

 

I am curious... should we then intercede when we see something we believe to be murder taking place (supposing it's not a relative or anyone familiar) or not?

 

Chev has hit on one of the problems. Where do we draw the line? Do I step in if I see a child being abused? I think I am morally bound to do so but someone else might walk away. Who am I to judge that person's action? As I judge so shall I be judged. If I fail to live up to what I believe then I am either a coward or a hypocrite.

Now before someone takes this an uses it to prove I should be against something or for something I wish to stress.

I strongly believe that other points of view, beliefs, morals have a equal right to exist. I do not have the right to tell someone what they should think, believe or do.

I am not referring to things that are against the law. Although even there I would make a judgement call.

 

There's a really rude comment I could make, and I worry that it is extremely accurate...

Well, there is too much sex in the movies and on TV. Most of what I watch anymore is sports and sports updates. I really don't think anyone's sexlife should be put up for public display.

I'm not a complete freak...

Isn't making a law about making a judgement about what ought to be and what should not be? Is this not a moral stance either way?

The impression that I got was that I was expected to support legal abortions or gay marriage, when these things repulse me. To find something morally repulsive yet remain silent when it is made legal, is what I consider fence sitting.

Actually, I would call Kerry a hypocrite in that situation. he was morally opposed to something but would have legalized it to satisfy party lines. And while others make their own decisions, I feel that I am being negligent if I keep quiet about the mistakes they make.

In most cases, what I don't like would be none of my business, and I'd like to keep it that way, but if they want to make it my business, then all bets are off. Two people having gay sex in private is not something I want to know, but when they want to redefine marriage to legitimize their sins or throw them in my face, then they are intersecting with my life, thus tossing your point there out the window.

Isn't that hypocritical? The pot calling the kettle black? People I don't know wanting to tell me that my definition of Marriage isn't good enough or that my religious beliefs are offensive to them because they do not legitimize their sins? The Gay lobby is already guilty of that...

Why not ask the Gay lobby? They wouldn't leave us alone until we decriminalized Homosexuality, took it off the books as a mental disorder, gave them the right to marry, and now they want the right to adopt...

I would have been happy with the way things were, but the changes are what pissed me off. And really, there is little that I can do about it. My local member of parliament voted as I would have liked, but the ofensive laws were still put in place...

I seek out no offence, it is thrown in my face!

But where is that line drawn? When the court wants to change the definition of marriage, that affects me. It means that the law will contradict what I will teach my children on that subject. But because I'm not seeking to marry another guy, that means that I have no right to speak on the matter? That, my friend, is pure

So the price of freedom is eternal vigilance? I walk in on a crime in progress, I'm not going to ask a rapist who the victim is to see if I know her, I'll do my best to interrupt and subdue the perp so that he is brought to justice. Just like in the Spiderman comics. he could have stopped a robber, but didn't care. That same crook later killed his uncle. What is the price of complacency?

Whether to do what you believe in or to retreat fearing that you'll step on the wrong toes. I say do what's right, for it is more important to please God than to please the sinners who would be offended by your acts...

They have the right to exist, but it doesn't make them right. Standing for what's right is most important here. As for the law, Right and Wrong ought to guide your debate in what the law should be...