Mar
31
Is Hypocrisy Sometimes Okay?
Filed Under Mindful Ideas | 5 Comments
Few people have tolerance for hypocrites. They are highly frustrating people, mostly because they are confusing to be around. How can you believe one thing and then act as though you don’t believe that at all? This makes no sense. These are the thoughts that came to mind as I read a magazine article regarding a new car, the Nano, to be released in India by Tata Motors. The potential for hypocrisy, you ask? This car will only cost $3,000, making it possible for hundreds of millions of Indian people to start driving. From the standpoint of environmental protection, this is disastrous, and it would seem that we have an ethical responsibility to resist this development. But can the United States, the birthplace of the automobile, legitimately oppose this without sounding like total hypocrites?
This is a tough call, honestly. Consistency is incredibly important in ethics, and if we are to ask India to curb its driving habits, we reasonably must also reduce our own. This seems reasonable, as well as being consistent with what most environmental advocates think we need to do, regardless of what India does. However, a deeper concern exists with regard to hypocrisy. Our nation, and much of the Western world, has grown prosperous by largely ignoring the environmental damage that we wrought. How can we ask developing nations to voluntarily forgo similar advantages?
In this case, and more generally, I think its okay to sometimes be a hypocrite. We cannot change our nation’s history any more than we can change the realities of environmental destruction or climate change. We must, in both our personal lives and at the level of global politics, deal realistically with the conditions that we are actually facing. Not speaking out against India’s efforts to become a driving nation is akin to remaining silent about your child’s drug use because you did drugs yourself.
Philosophically, the issue of hypocrisy in personal conduct is a matter of failure to separate old beliefs from new ones. In the past, you may have had certain beliefs that led to particular actions. As you have progressed, you have developed new beliefs that hopefully improved upon your old beliefs and led to ethically preferable behavior. It does not make sense to then evaluate current actions based on previous beliefs. You should not decide how to address your child’s drug use by referring to beliefs that you held at their age, any more than the United States should evaluate India’s efforts to put one hundred million cars on the road based on beliefs that we held fifty years ago. Why would we do that? Why would you do that? This is totally illogical, but we do it all the time.
There are essentially two types of hypocrisy, and it is crucial that we make a distinction between them in order to avoid false senses of hypocritical actions. The parent who won’t discipline their child because they used to act in a similar way is dealing with a false sense of hypocrisy based on a change in belief that is not being properly acknowledged. This is no hypocrisy at all. The parent who disciplines their child for actions that they still engage in is a hypocrite. There is no change in belief at work, only a discrepancy between belief and action. This is not appropriate for a person interested in self-improvement and growth. However, recognizing that beliefs change and not holding yourself hostage to old beliefs is not only not hypocritical, it is crucial to moving beyond our outdated belief systems.
Mar
24
Recently, I wrote a rather judgmental article about the personal shortcomings of individuals who find themselves caught up in a possible home foreclosure. My goal with regard to writing about the mortgage crisis is not to berate individuals who have chosen poorly, although it may seem that this is the case. Rather, the mortgage crisis represents a stellar example of what I refer to as “everyday ethics.” This is the notion that not only is the world full of opportunities to develop yourself as an ethical person, it is also full of lessons in what being an ethical person really means. Everyday ethics is about seeing the world as your teacher as well as your classroom, and the mortgage crisis is just one of the many lessons out there.
Already the mortgage crisis has offered us a lesson about taking accountability for our choices. Perhaps there is also an opportunity to flex our ethical muscles. Whether you are actually facing a potential foreclosure, or simply engaging in philosophical thought experiments, thinking about the ethics associated with financial problems is a great source of personal moral development.
Consider the following scenario. You made a bad choice about home loan financing, and now you find yourself facing financial obligations that far exceed your means. An opportunity presents itself for you to be freed of your financial burden, but it requires that you participate in an embezzlement scheme hatched by one of your co-workers. What should you do?
From the standpoint of ethical theory, this is an easy question. Embezzlement is stealing, and most people agree that stealing is wrong under almost any circumstances. But in the world of everyday ethics, this question is not so easy to answer. If you don’t participate in this scheme, you lose your home. If you do, you are stealing. How do you decide what is more important?
This is a challenging situation, as are most real-life ethical problems. It won’t do to suggest that possibly losing your home makes stealing morally acceptable. But we can consider what ethical theory might offer us with regard to settling this confusion. One popular theory of ethics is known as utilitarianism. This theory says that being moral requires us to maximize happiness or good consequences in our moral decision-making. So the question of whether to participate in the embezzlement scheme becomes a question of what will lead to the most happiness.
Utilitarianism may not be what leads us to the best decision in the end, but it will definitely help us get clear about the problem, and hopefully provide insight into what we really ought to do. First, we have some questions to answer. First of all, are we likely to get caught? Second, what are some possible consequences if we do get caught? Will our family be ashamed of us? Will we be setting a bad example for our children? Will this cause other people to lose trust in us?
There are many factors associated with making this decision, and most of them suggest that their really is a lot of potential for trouble if we do decide to pursue the embezzling scheme with our coworker.
Ethical theory is a great tool, even for those who don’t want to spend all day arguing about morality. In this case, a simple theory like utilitarianism helps us to realize that most of the potential for negative consequences and unhappy results lies on the side of doing the unethical thing and stealing to try and get out of financial trouble. It seems that stealing is not only morally wrong, it’s also not conducive to making us happy or creating positive consequences in our lives. A confusing problem where we might be tempted to take shortcuts has been turned into a very clear scenario where the right decision is apparent.
Who knew ethical theory could actually be useful?