Which is Worse: Having and Failing to Meet Moral Standards or Being a Hypocrite?

06/10/07 | Reaganesque

[SoldierMedic]

[Afterthought] And as for the hypocrite hiding the sin, society is generally clear as to what is and is not acceptable. It’s not hiding the sin because you’re emberassed or ashamed, it’s hiding it because you don’t want the punishment, the social repucussions of what you have been doing.

[Reaganesque]

All good comments! Thanks for your participation! Keep it up!

[sayfer bullets]

Good question(s)...

“Which is worse? Having moral standards and earnestly trying, but failing, to live up to them or being a hypocrite?”

To answer with another question, which is worse...poor performance or dishonesty? Both are possible, but should be unacceptable. All sin is the same, in God’s eyes, if I am correct.

The key, and not addressed in the short-but-still-poignant question, is repetition and/or recidivism.

“Are the two the same thing?”

Eventually, yes. I mean, we’ve all heard “fool me once, ...”. Another example: Christ said “...Go and sin no more.” One would think he meant it. Once aware of an indescretion (most of us know BEFORE we commit one) any that follow are simply willful disobedience.

Additionally, how do we know when someone is earnest or not? What do you think?

I think, first, that that’s an excellent question. Watch what they do, and with whom they associate.

[Salo]

Being a hypocrite sells papers, and I think it infuriates people more and is the bigger “sin”.

For those of us on the right, since we claim the high ground on issues of sexual morality, a sex scandal is generally much more damaging than it would be for someone who is not judgmental in such matters. This is why Rudy Gulianni gets a pass: he doesn’t claim (or deserve) the moral high ground in such matters. Mitt Romney would disappear in half a heartbeat if it became known he merely looked at a pornographic magazine in his youth.

It works in a favor, generally, in matters of economics or environmental issues. The Breck Girl has been getting a lot of negative press over his 400$ haircuts, exorbitant speaking fees and his hedge fund poverty escapade. Al Gore’s heating bills are similarly great fodder. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh could heat his house by burning spotted owls wrapped in hundred dollar bills and joke publicly about doing so: he doesn’t pray at the temple of environmental socialism and is immune from criticism on those matters.

[DarthVader]

Bravo! Very well said.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

HELLO MRS. JOHNSON

WELL HELLO MRS. JOHNSON YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS WOMAN,
SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER WHAT BRINGS YOU OUT SLUMMING?
DO YOU RECKON THE PREACHER WOULD APPROVE WHERE YOU ARE,
SITTING HERE VISITING WITH A BACK-SLIDDING CHRISTIAN
IN A NEIGHBORHOOD BAR?

YES THAT’S MY BOTTLE AND YES THAT’S MY GLASS AND I SEE YOU’RE EYE BALLING THIS PRETTY YOUNG LASS.
AIN’T NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS BUT YES SHE’S WITH ME AND I
DON’T NEED NO SERMON YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS WOMAN, JUST LET
US BE.

WELL THE LORD KNOWS I’M DRINKING AND RUNNING AROUND AND I DON’T NEED YOUR LOUD MOUTH INFORMING THE TOWN.
WELL THE LORD KNOWS I’M SINNING AND SINNING AIN’T RIGHT
BUT ME AND THE GOOD LORD’S GONNA HAVE US A GOOD TALK
LATER TO NIGHT.

WELL GOODBYE MRS. JOHNSON YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS BITTY
I DON’T NEED YOUR LOUD MOUTH AND I DON’T NEED YOUR PITY
SO GO BACK TO WHAT EVER YOU HYPOCRITES DO AND WHEN I
SPEAK TO HEAVEN BE NICE AND I’LL PUT IN A GOOD WORD FOR YOU

BUT ME AND THE GOOD LORD’S GONNA HAVE US A GOOD TALK
LATER TONIGHT

[Popocatapetl]

Hypocrisy is actually a pretty complex thing. It includes how people see you, how you want them to see you, how you see yourself, how you want to see yourself, the substance of an issue and how you explain that issue, your motivations and the standards of accuracy used by you and others.

It can, but doesn’t have to, incorporate lies, greed, lust, ambition, treachery, avarice, pragmatism, idealism, realism, cynicism, honor, kindness and courtesy, even anger and hatred.

It can be calculating and complex, or simple, very intentional or subconscious. You either have to embrace standards, or have them thrust upon you, and then violate them. And it requires someone else to call you a hypocrite, to try and hold you to a standard that may be unrealistic.

This is not to say that hypocrisy is relative, just that it must be carefully justified to know what it really means.

[StACase]

Thank you for the link, I watched the whole thing.

[non-anonymous]

In my experience, the people who engage in pointing out the failings of people with high moral standards are invariably assholes of the first rate.

Case in point: I have a very good Mormon friend who I would consider one of the finest people I’ve ever known, but he was known to occasionally drink a Coke (not supposed to drink caffiene he said - oops). He had also, according to the person who I’m about to describe, allegedly fooled around with his fiance before they were married (gasp!).

This other person, an avid Al Gore enthusiast and nutty nonsensical lib the entire time I knew him, was constantly railing against my friend behind his back. I suppose that was because HE was perfect, right? Well, to be honest he was a star student at a top school, and is very capable in his field... I’ll give him that. But aside from that he was a jerk, a gossip, and had the most digusting personal habits of anyone I’ve ever known.

He routinely hooked up with women who - if they fell for him - invariably got tired of his insensitivity and selfishness, and his behavior typically bordered on violent when things weren’t going well: he hit my good friend when she tried to break up with him.

An avid bicyclist (I hope not too representative) he routinely had accidents with cars because he apparently thought he had the perpetual right of way — he sued one person whose car he broadsided while ignoring a red light, and because of Massachusetts at-fault law (at least according to his bragging) he could sue and get a $50,000 settlement “easy” (I don’t know if he actually won or not, but his dad sued).

Oh, and did I mention that he was a closet racist, on more than one occasion calling his neighbors in his area of Boston “ghetto monkeys”? And this is someone interested and planning on getting into local democratic politics?

Last I heard of him, he’d gotten a cushy government job in Boston, and was gloating about his brand new $4000 laptop he’d charged to his expense account. I guess the feds wanted him to have top-notch notebook graphics and audio for him to enjoy in the comfort of his home. Who knew?

I could go on, but is it any surprise that according to this guy with hardly a shred of standards, my Mormon friend is the bad guy?

[usconservative]

Failing to meet moral standards means you had those standards to begin with, whereas the hypocrite probably never had them at all.

Well said.

Those with morals and standards also recognize that we all fall short in God's eyes. The difference between those with morals and standards vs. those who don't is that we'll dust ourselves off, get up, and try again.

There's also an aspect of humility that I believe many with morals and standards lack. For example, one of my friends commented recently that I had the appearance of someone who "had it all together" so he thought I looked down my nose at others.

My reply was simple and pointed. I told him that I believed myself to be the biggest sinner in the room because I as a person of faith knows what Christ's example for me was, and that I fail repeatedly in my daily life to live up to it. I then went on to say that it's only by His grace and mercy that I can pick myself up, dust myself off, and try again in earnest.

Those two simple, pointed statements opened up an entirely new aspect of our friendship, and set him on a journey to learn more about faith.

[RightWhale]

First of all, it is ethical standards or code of ethics. The code of ethics is a legal matter regulating the performance of professionals in professional bodies. Moral refers anymore to the individual process of choice based on perceived value.

[Unmarked Package]

Hypocrisy is a much greater offense, not necessarily because of the damage it causes to the public standing or soul of the offender, but because of what it degrades in society. A very public demonstration of hypocrisy delivers the message to many that standards of conduct are not fixed and not worthy of respect. Hypocrisy moves a magnet closer to the moral compass of thousands or even millions of other people, deflecting their moral code away from the true direction to follow. Every example of a changing or irrelevant moral standard draws others further away from the path of righteousness and civility.

In contrast to hypocrisy, failing to live up to a deeply held moral or religious code is accompanied by a public expression of guilt and repentance. That strengthens the moral code in the minds of others. It demonstrates the standard is fixed and worthy of respect by suffering humiliation when it’s not followed. The direction of truth to be followed is not altered for the culture and is reaffirmed in the lives of many others.

[Vanbasten]

“Which is worse: Having and failing to meet morale standards or Being a hypocrite?”

If you fail to meet your own morale standards, then you can’t exactly say that they are your standards. You don’t live by them. Or are we talking about living by other people’s standards or morality?

Being a hypocrite shows a lack of even having certain standards. You will claim to have a certain principle, and then do something directly contradictory to that principle. It just dishonest.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But what separates that from the hypocrite is that the hypocrite feels no remorse for disregarding his own rules. The hypocrite will come up with excuses, will shift the blame, will feel no shame (Except perhaps the embarrassment of being caught).

Failing to meet moral standards means you had those standards to begin with, whereas the hypocrite probably never had them at all.

A hypocrite is a person who doesn't "walk the talk". In general liberals don't talk traditional morality....hence they can't be hypocrites with regards to morality.

Conservatives do "talk" morality hence they can be hypocrites.

That's why when Republican Congressman Mark Foley was outed as a pervert he resigned in disgrace. While the Democrat pervert Gary Studds, when outed, was given a standing ovation.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

In general liberals don't talk traditional morality

And I might add they despise traditional morality and those who say we should abide by it.

[TAdams8591]

Failing to always live up to the high standards we may set for our selves, is not "hypocrisey" but human.

Hypocrisey is giving lip service to those standards, and never seriously attempting to attain them (sometimes purposely doing precisely the opposite).