#3 - Argument by hypocrisy
Thursday, August 27, 2009 at 01:43AM This one is a tough one because it is such an easy trap to get sucked into. Pointing out the hypocrisy of your opponent is at best useless, and at worst very damaging. There is such an incentive to do it, just to revel in the bad-person-ness that is your opponent, that most people even knowing what they will discover here just can't help themselves.
First - it is useless because the belief of your opponent says nothing whatsoever about the state of the universe. If your opponent argues that the Earth is round, but truly believes that the Earth is flat (and maybe behaves in some external fashion consistent with that belief so that you can identify it), pointing out his hypocrisy on this issue does not make the Earth flat. Your opponent may be silly, but there is no need to join him, simply argue the merits of your position or the lack of the merits of his stated position.
Second - it can be harmful because there is such a temptation to find hypocrisy that we see it sometimes where it does not quite exist. Then, you make the big promise - "AHA - he is being a hypocrite" - and then when your audience does a little research they find that you didn't quite give the whole story. Now, you have lost credibility with your audience. And for what? The hypocrisy of your opponent would have been irrelevant to the argument in any case.
Third - it can be harmful because pointing out the hypocrisy of your opponent gives your opponent credibility. The hypocrisy (H) is the action or belief that is not the argument of your opponent. By attacking the hypocrisy, you are saying that his argument is weaker with H, which necessarily means that it is stronger without H. Now you have set your opponent up as an authority figure on the matter, who needs to put his house in order, but that when he does so (or even admits that he needs to) now he has an argument that you might support. Further, you alienate his supporters because your hypocrisy argument is necessarily personal, not about the issue, and therefore you suffer incremental loss of potential future support for your position.
The best way to treat hypocrisy is to ignore it completely. If it's that blatant, someone else will point it out, and you don't promote your opponent as an authority figure, run the risk of losing credibility for a not-quite on point accusation, or make a personal attack that alienates his supporters.
Reader Comments (1)
I revel in attacking hypocrisy. But I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Rather, I view the question in different terms. For me, hypocrisy means a disparity between proclaimed adherence to principle and actual practice. Belief is not the focus; conduct is. Whether a person adheres to principle is extremely relevant, especially if they act in an institutional capacity dedicated to the principle at issue. In this sense, hypocrisy is not just personal; it is also institutional. It is about power, responsibility and abuse. When an institutional figure (or "authoritative figure," if you like) engages in hypocrisy, I don't think he reinforces his authority. To the contrary, I think hypocrisy permanently damages his claim to authority in the first place.
I also don't think there are categorically "good" or "technically sound" arguments. When it comes to authority, people do not respect "authority figures" simply because they adhere to some "technical argument rule." Rather, people respect authority when its agents adhere to the principles authority promises to fulfill. Appearances are important in this regard. Hypocrisy damages appearances and weakens faith in authority. Pointing it out only emboldens an authority figure's supporters if the hypocrisy claim is unwarranted. But in many cases, it is eminently possible to point out hypocrisy without the slightest exaggeration.
I don't like personal attacks, either. But for me, hypocrisy accusations are not personal. They only come into play when there are larger principles at work. When I wheel out the hypocrisy guns, I don't focus on petty things. I focus on things like commitment to liberty and dignity. Additionally, hypocrisy claims work best when aimed far upward, against institutions with true power. For example, when the Bush Administration claimed to fight for liberty and dignity in the Iraq War, yet deigned to torture people at the same time, I see serious hypocrisy. I don't think pointing it out is irrelevant at all, since it permanently damages the Administration's (an authority's) claim to trustworthiness. If that alienates its supporters, then its supporters are just self-delusional.
On the other hand, maybe that's the problem. It's impossible to weaken faith among truly committed supporters. You could have pointed out a million hypocrisies in Hitler's life, yet his supporters never would have believed them, let alone lost faith in his authority.