Philosophy Now Forum

I have come to the conclusion as an atheist that the ultimate or most mortal sin if you like is hypocrisy.

Discuss.

Simple topic no messing around what do you think?

St. Peter: Welcome!

Arvand "The Contract" Tolonik: Thanks. I assume it was not the eighty-seven people I whacked over the course of a lifetime and the assorted rapes that earned me the honor of being at these gates?

St. Peter: No, not that itself. You were just damned forthright about what you were, my boy. Out there in the open and staying consistent with your identity. We like that kind of solid character up here.

Nice "quotes", but I can see this thread is not going to attract much interest, too forthright, too honest, hypocrisy is not a sin to most people too, I have noticed that. We I think have to decide that most of the egregious sinners are in heaven. I am sure the irony is not wasted on the Christian apologetics movement.

Hipocrisy is like lies, I guess. There are "good ones" and "bad ones". It's not only the act itself, but the context in which it occurs.

There are weak and strong hypocrisies. It depends upon how strongly it relates to the subject. Typical cases of weak hypocrisy is where you set out a general rule, but break it on grounds that would be sensible to make exceptions for but which you didn't make an exception for.

Weak hypocrisies can by annoyances but can often be excused and given understanding in more moderate social circles. I think if anything is a good show of tolerance, it is the ability to let the boss or the administrator fail on their own terms, so it's a good sign of humility when you let a person get away easily with weak hypocrisy. Given, of course, that you make certain they actually do something about the error of thought, as if you don't do anything it can even in some small cases become cowardliness, as it weakens the overall integrity of the person in question (beyond what they've already lost of integrity) and yourself.

Strong hypocrisies are when there are seemingly no valid excuses, or either the subject is so serious that even big excuses are weakened by the severity. Murder is an example of those very severe situations: you shall not kill, and then you go ahead and kill somebody in defence of yourself or somebody else. I think in most situations you have alternatives to outright aim to kill, and so it could be a very severe hypocrisy if shot to kill when you could easily had injured the enemy's legs or somehow hinder and/or stop them sufficiently to get out of the situation.

If you should go ahead and ban the smoking of cigarettes in public places indoor and right outside (which has happened in Norway this year) and then proceed, as a politician, to smoke inside the area of your parliament, that would also be a severe situation not because smoking is such a bad thing by itself but because you are a representative of law, order and justice, you are the highest of the society, and as such it becomes much more severe than it otherwise would. Also a strong hypocrisy... a teacher smoking outside a school, is also kinda bad, but if they try to cover up and hide away from sight, it might be excused, though public authorities might look more strict on the matter x)

Blaggard wrote:I have come to the conclusion as an atheist that the ultimate or most mortal sin if you like is hypocrisy. ...

Isn't an atheist being slightly hypocritical talking about a mortal sin?

Arising_uk wrote:

Blaggard wrote:I have come to the conclusion as an atheist that the ultimate or most mortal sin if you like is hypocrisy. ...

Isn't an atheist being slightly hypocritical talking about a mortal sin?

It was an ironic joke so not really.

The Voice of Time wrote:There are weak and strong hypocrisies. It depends upon how strongly it relates to the subject. Typical cases of weak hypocrisy is where you set out a general rule, but break it on grounds that would be sensible to make exceptions for but which you didn't make an exception for.

Weak hypocrisies can by annoyances but can often be excused and given understanding in more moderate social circles. I think if anything is a good show of tolerance, it is the ability to let the boss or the administrator fail on their own terms, so it's a good sign of humility when you let a person get away easily with weak hypocrisy. Given, of course, that you make certain they actually do something about the error of thought, as if you don't do anything it can even in some small cases become cowardliness, as it weakens the overall integrity of the person in question (beyond what they've already lost of integrity) and yourself.

Strong hypocrisies are when there are seemingly no valid excuses, or either the subject is so serious that even big excuses are weakened by the severity. Murder is an example of those very severe situations: you shall not kill, and then you go ahead and kill somebody in defence of yourself or somebody else. I think in most situations you have alternatives to outright aim to kill, and so it could be a very severe hypocrisy if shot to kill when you could easily had injured the enemy's legs or somehow hinder and/or stop them sufficiently to get out of the situation.

If you should go ahead and ban the smoking of cigarettes in public places indoor and right outside (which has happened in Norway this year) and then proceed, as a politician, to smoke inside the area of your parliament, that would also be a severe situation not because smoking is such a bad thing by itself but because you are a representative of law, order and justice, you are the highest of the society, and as such it becomes much more severe than it otherwise would. Also a strong hypocrisy... a teacher smoking outside a school, is also kinda bad, but if they try to cover up and hide away from sight, it might be excused, though public authorities might look more strict on the matter x)

That's a very insightful post VOT, I can't really add to that except to say pretty much right.

Generally agree with your idea that hypocrisy comes in strengths VOT.

The Voice of Time wrote:...
Strong hypocrisies are when there are seemingly no valid excuses, or either the subject is so serious that even big excuses are weakened by the severity. Murder is an example of those very severe situations: you shall not kill, and then you go ahead and kill somebody in defence of yourself or somebody else. ...

This is not murder its self-defence. If you believe 'thou shalt not kill' then you kill, whether in self-defence or not its rank hypocrisy.

... I think in most situations you have alternatives to outright aim to kill, and so it could be a very severe hypocrisy if shot to kill when you could easily had injured the enemy's legs or somehow hinder and/or stop them sufficiently to get out of the situation. ...

I think this is Hollywood nonsense, along with shooting to the head, as in such a fraught situation it'd take a highly trained marksman to do such a thing and even then they are taught to aim at the torso and put more than a round into it to stop a person. The idea that one could hit the legs or 'wing' them is unrealistic, especially if just the threat of the gun does not deter them. Not that I'm speaking from experience just upon a reasonable authority I know.

If you aim for the torso you're likely to kill, either by hitting essential organs or causing them to bleed to death and so forth.

It's no Hollywood speak, unless you happen to have just 1 bullet you can sacrifice a couple or more on trying to hit their legs. When a person comes towards you, the legs are close and next to each other, hitting their hips should be easy enough, and while that may not stop them entirely, it's quite easy to outrun somebody halting, and even easier to shoot them a second time with more precision... though if it's a guy you might very well shoot their balls of but at least you tried then.

As for your comment it is is hypocrisy, that is indeed so, but it can very well become a weak hypocrisy. Most people I think believe in self-defence, and don't hold a grudge against somebody who have little alternative in matters of self-defence. You of course, might think it a strong hypocrisy, but my description was on the relationship between the moral judges... like the public, and the case, not individual opinions.

Arising_uk wrote:Generally agree with your idea that hypocrisy comes in strengths VOT.

The Voice of Time wrote:...
Strong hypocrisies are when there are seemingly no valid excuses, or either the subject is so serious that even big excuses are weakened by the severity. Murder is an example of those very severe situations: you shall not kill, and then you go ahead and kill somebody in defence of yourself or somebody else. ...

This is not murder its self-defence. If you believe 'thou shalt not kill' then you kill, whether in self-defence or not its rank hypocrisy.

... I think in most situations you have alternatives to outright aim to kill, and so it could be a very severe hypocrisy if shot to kill when you could easily had injured the enemy's legs or somehow hinder and/or stop them sufficiently to get out of the situation. ...

I think this is Hollywood nonsense, along with shooting to the head, as in such a fraught situation it'd take a highly trained marksman to do such a thing and even then they are taught to aim at the torso and put more than a round into it to stop a person. The idea that one could hit the legs or 'wing' them is unrealistic, especially if just the threat of the gun does not deter them. Not that I'm speaking from experience just upon a reasonable authority I know.

When did you become a trained Assassin Arising? If I might ask..? Hence who is this authority that is your Sensei on all things death or life maybe?

Sex combined with religion would probably attract the 'strongest', most blatant hypocrisy I can think of. Ted Haggard is the first person who springs to mind, along with all the other christian hypocrites who've been caught with their pants down (literally), while preaching celibacy and gay-hatred. Same goes for the muslim mullahs who rape young girls and then have them hanged or stoned for the 'crime' of being raped.

Blaggard wrote:When did you become a trained Assassin Arising?

Which bit of 'not in my experience' didn't you understand?

Hence who is this authority that is your Sensei on all things death or life maybe?

Maybe I shouldn't have used "a" as its a few as it happens, a colour sergeant and urban combat instructor in the Guards, a lance-corporal in the Green Jackets, a corporal in the Paras and a member of the Mets Firearms Unit.

Arising_uk wrote:

Blaggard wrote:When did you become a trained Assassin Arising?

Which bit of 'not in my experience' didn't you understand?

Hence who is this authority that is your Sensei on all things death or life maybe?

Maybe I shouldn't have used "a" as its a few as it happens, a colour sergeant and urban combat instructor in the Guards, a lance-corporal in the Green Jackets, a corporal in the Paras and a member of the Mets Firearms Unit.

None of it you seem to be saying you are an authority on something, the question was merely meant to discern why you feel you are. Not to upset you and cause you to go off into a shame spiral.

Answer the question or don't. I care not.

No offense but a Lance-Corporal in the Green jackets, really that is who you consider an expert. You have a lot to learn if I might say.

No one cares. Seriously no one will care, perhaps that's why the world is a bad place, no one cares, perhaps it's because some people are so gullible they will believe any self imposed Pedagogue or Demagogue, who knows...

If philosophy is about logically discerning "truth" though, I think it would pay not to be suckered in by the first person with an opinion on something you run across. No offense, but waaaa?

"I have come to the conclusion...the ultimate or most mortal sin...is hypocrisy."

I disagree.

Hypocrisy is just lying (sumthin' every one does).

The 'sin, then, is to willfully ignore what 'is' (people lie) in favor of what 'isn't' (folks are naturally honest).

That is: the 'sin' is to be a chump.