On Hypocrisy

Pointing out hypocrisy is a very popular rhetorical technique in politics and “debate.” I usually find it very tiresome. People bring it to bear if they want to point out some inconsistency in an opponent that shows that they have no room to talk, and therefore ought be ignored on some point (or all points henceforth).

There are many candidate configurations here:

• a person is using two inconsistent arguments but isn’t aware of the inconsistency
• a person is using two apparently inconsistent arguments but the actual inconsistency is not a settled matter
• a person is using two inconsistent arguments and is aware of it
• a person is applying a different standard to one agent than the one she applies to other agents (irreconcilable)
• a person is applying a different standard to one agent than the one she applies to other agents (reconcilable)
• a person is not exemplifying the standard they are proposing (not realizable)
• a person is not exemplifying the standard they are proposing (unrealized but realizable)
• a person is not exemplifying the standard they are proposing (realized but accuser is unaware)

I think most peoples’ intuition would only count some of these as actual hypocrisy, while others simply look like it or can be made to look like it. It’s those latter cases that make accusations of hypocrisy so tiresome to me, because it seems to be very easy to successfully accuse someone of hypocrisy and very difficult to prove innocence because the key facts of the matter are often hard to pin down or easy to misrepresent.

• it’s hard to know if the accused is honestly unaware or unaccepting, of the incosistency or just pretending to be
• it’s easy to pretend or convince others that the inconsistency is settled when it is not
• it’s easy to be/remain ignorant of a reconciling argument or fact of the matter that resolves an apparent inconsistency
• it’s easy to accuse someone of an technical inconsistency that is trivial in its degree
• it’s easy to claim a violation of an unrealizable standard by pretending it is realizable

To be explicit, I am proposing that the base vice of “pure” or “maximum” hypocrisy is dishonesty or bad faith – that the properly accused is aware of the inconsistency and chooses to ignore or hide it for the sake of argument.

I distinguish this from what I see as less vicious forms of error, forms that don’t even qualify as hypocrisy. I think if the person would change their position upon receiving new facts of the matter, then they were never being hypocritical, just mistaken. I think that if the person honestly does not understand or accept the inconsistency, then they are only being incidentally hypocritical at worst. I think it’s entirely consistent to advocate for change even if you’re not capable of realizing it instantly or without help (perhaps blame vs advocacy is different here). I think it is very easy to make a blanket judgement about someone’s “virtue signaling” or “slacktivism” when you don’t actually know what they have been up to or whether or not their public commitments are honest or not. These involve mental states and behavioral histories which are unknowable or very hard to triangulate with any certainty. Many accusations of hypocrisy seem to exploit this uncertainty in a way that is convenient or advantageous to an accuser, especially one who hopes to sow doubt for the sake of argument. This leaves plenty of room for the audience to make their own judgement calls with only their preconceptions and biases left to complete the judgement. People end up being marked with the sin of hypocrisy when they are only mistaken, or perhaps even fully consistent, just in a way that is subtle or hard to see.

For people who argue to get at some truth of the matter at hand, rather than simply to discredit an opponent, this suggests a change in approach when detecting behavior that looks like hypocrisy:

• Evaluate the facts and premises rather than calling it hypocrisy. An honest interlocuter would concede the point
• Do not assume dishonesty when observing an apparent inconsistency. Your premises could be faulty or your knowledge incomplete
• Do not assume the mental state of an opponent. If there is a willful inconsistency, only patience and care can reveal it. It is usually not easily knowable or provable
• Be aware you cannot make someone understand something they are presently incapable of understanding
• Don’t abuse false dichotomies. A less-than-full committment is not necessarily an inconsistency

Given these uncertainties, the accusation of hypocrisy strikes me as too error-prone a tool for those committed to good-faith discussions that seek to converge on common truths. I think people should resort to it less often. It’s too easy to get it wrong and it’s often not worth getting it right. Someone dishonest enough to habitually embody true hypocrisy is probably not going to change because of a single “gotcha” nor are their fans. The uncertaintly also provides some cover… soon you’re on a mission to discredit the whole person by exposing their intentions or character, rather than focusing on the argument. Maybe you can eventually coordinate some clues which unambiguously out them as a hypocrite. But is it worth it? In most cases I think it probably is an unnecessary distraction from the original argument. If you suspect a person is a hypocrite based on repeated bouts of doubt, I think life’s too short to not filter them out… but it’s another thing to embark on a mission to convince others that they should also do so.

Disclaimer: These are just shower thoughts. I’m sure there are more informed analyses out there about the nature of hypocrisy, how to identify it, its harms, and what we ought to do about it. These are very much non-professional, underdeveloped opinions.