To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
Hypocrisy
Am I the only one who doesn't think that it's the biggest deal in the world?
For instance, we see a ton of talk about people denouncing gays, who turn out to be gay. Now, I of course think anti-gay sentiment is pathetic, but just within its own internal logic, is it really all that bad that many of these guys turn out to be gay? I mean, a lot of them are saying that homosexuality is a cross to be borne, and that it might be difficult to act heterosexual, but still necessary. In that framework, is it that bad to be a gay guy who lapses in strength? For instance, Ted Haggard. Does this really invalidate their argument? Or even hurt it?
If someone is a big proponent of the death penalty, and keeps going on about how terrible murder is, and then goes out and murders somebody, does that mean they were wrong in their condemnation of murder? I don't think that the proponents of an idea have to adhere to it perfectly, for the idea to be defensible.
What do you guys think?
For instance, we see a ton of talk about people denouncing gays, who turn out to be gay. Now, I of course think anti-gay sentiment is pathetic, but just within its own internal logic, is it really all that bad that many of these guys turn out to be gay? I mean, a lot of them are saying that homosexuality is a cross to be borne, and that it might be difficult to act heterosexual, but still necessary. In that framework, is it that bad to be a gay guy who lapses in strength? For instance, Ted Haggard. Does this really invalidate their argument? Or even hurt it?
If someone is a big proponent of the death penalty, and keeps going on about how terrible murder is, and then goes out and murders somebody, does that mean they were wrong in their condemnation of murder? I don't think that the proponents of an idea have to adhere to it perfectly, for the idea to be defensible.
What do you guys think?
Comments
I agree with you
btw, where is randomuser?
i will return to share my thoughts on this.. great thread mod! :beer:
i like the idea of having flexible morals.. values that are bendable.. to an extent it makes you a more practical or efficient (for the lack of a better word) person.. but that of course depends on how one uses this flexibility.. as with the case of capital punishment.. on one side some see it as murder.. but use it in wars (deemed justified by whomever initiates it) it is perceived to be fighting for the greater good or humanity etc. deep down we know it's nothing but murder.. yet because the causes are different these actions are justified for their purposes.. hence the key word here is justification.. when humans find a way to justify their immoral or illogical acts.. they will act upon it even they're fully aware it is inherently wrong.. that is the beauty of hypocrisy.. for it allows you to do many things that you wouldn't and can't do if you don't see yourself as a hypocrite.. which i firmly believe that no one can deny of being.. one way or another.. =P
Who do you think you're fooling?
Everything is dead!
Now you welcome me,
To a town called hypocrisy
Your honesty to blame
Put dignity to shame
Dishonor
After all, the purpose of religion is to have something outside of yourself to believe in, to blame, to make use of as it is convenient. Religion may have started out pure and earthy, but the transformations down history has made it the way it is now--the third party, the omnipresence.
Anyhow. A universal truth? Hypocrites are only hypocrites when met with strong opposition.
And the ignorant people that go "Japan eats whales, they are sick and I hope they get nuked again" and "Those asian cultures that eat dogs (even though they have nothing else to eat) should rot in hell" while they're munching on a Big Mac, living their higher quality of life.
So what exactly makes you state it is hypocritical for punishments to exactly match the crime?
(PS. Since people will assume this means I personally endorse the action, I do not. But I am curious as to the rationale behind Myname's statements)
For example, in our society fairness, and equity are two very important values. Hence, we have social programs which aid the poor and unfortunate. Yet, at the same time we encourage capitalism which completely goes against fairness and equity, at least in the ethical and moral sense.
Why? It's because we all want everyone to do their best and the society to be equal. Yet, few people will pass the opportunity to relax and get free food. That's why communism failed.
It's a "big deal" but not a huge deviation from basic human nature.