Wysteria
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 17, 2002
- Posts
- 208
One of the threads has reminded me of a bit from a book...
So, hypocrisy: deadly sin or shortcoming? Is =everything= all right for you to do as long as you never said it wasn't (or pledged full endorsement to something that says it isn't)? If not, is a wrong thing worse if you've said it's wrong than if you haven't? If you espouse an anti-capitalistic, anti-fame-factory viewpoint but, say, sign with a major record label and become rich and famous, but then =use= your fame and fortune to help broadcast your ideas and create alternatives to the system you claim to despise, is that worse than never 'selling out' and never having anyone to preach to but the choir? Is the bible hypocritical for holding a major tenet of "Thou shalt not kill" but also prescribing death in all sorts of unpleasant ways for various offenses? Does the idea that only "he who is without sin" should "cast the first stone" ameliorate that any? And whatcha think of the quote?
From The Diamond Age, by Neal Stephenson:
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices," Finkle-McGraw said. "It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others - after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?"
"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous pecadillo into the monarch of all vices. For, you see, even if there is no right and wrong, you can find grounds to criticise another person by contrasting what he has espoused with what he has actually done. In this case, you are not making any judgment whatsoever as to the correctness of his views or the morality of his behaviour - you are merely pointing out that he has said one thing and done another. Virtually all political discourse in the days of my youth was devoted to the ferreting out of hypocrisy."
"In the late twentieth century Weltanschauung, a hypocrite was someone who espoused high moral views as part of a planned campaign of deception - he never held these beliefs sincerely and routinely violated them in privacy. Of course, most hypocrites are not like that. Most of the time it's a spirit is willing, flesh-is-weak sort of thing."
So, hypocrisy: deadly sin or shortcoming? Is =everything= all right for you to do as long as you never said it wasn't (or pledged full endorsement to something that says it isn't)? If not, is a wrong thing worse if you've said it's wrong than if you haven't? If you espouse an anti-capitalistic, anti-fame-factory viewpoint but, say, sign with a major record label and become rich and famous, but then =use= your fame and fortune to help broadcast your ideas and create alternatives to the system you claim to despise, is that worse than never 'selling out' and never having anyone to preach to but the choir? Is the bible hypocritical for holding a major tenet of "Thou shalt not kill" but also prescribing death in all sorts of unpleasant ways for various offenses? Does the idea that only "he who is without sin" should "cast the first stone" ameliorate that any? And whatcha think of the quote?