Yes, and Jesus didn't like it either in the Bible!

yes we surely are hypocritical (not that its a good thing)...we preach what is good but don't follow it when it has negative effects on our enjoyment of life.

"Yes, and Jesus didn't like it either ..."

Indeed, and they (hypocrites) did not forgive him this.

Sadly its probably true, our lives are spent chasing integrity and trying to nuture it in others.

Though many people are hypocritical on several occasions , however , the "norms" of their society implies that they are not hypocritical most of the time .

Christian: "To blame people for all circumstances they live in might also be a kind of hypocrisy."

Correct; but we (at my department) live quite well, and we are all nice people. It is only me who constantly struggle against air-conditioning, which is completely superfluous three quarters of the year. We have plenty of fresh air, which is neither too hot nor too cold. But air-conditioning works all the year around, entire days. It is me against all, and I have been loosing this battle for years.

I think we are inherently hypocritical because as Christian Baumgarten said our circumstances very often run in different directions to our circumstances which cause a conflict of interest. I don't think that you can limit this to the younger generation. In my field (marine conservation), I probably read a paper every few days that ends saying that in order for marine conservation to succeed successfully cross-boundary collaboration is necessary. These papers are written by the best in our profession (people that the younger generation aspire to be). However, these papers are written over ten years ago, in similar regions, and no collaboration exists. When the writers are contacted about collaboration they do not respond despite it being in the best interest of marine conservation (perhaps they are worried about their data). I am not disagreeing that the younger generation are inherently hypocritical, but perhaps, from a research perspective at least, they are learning this from an older generation.

Incidentally, air conditioning is not the only problem of this world; in my book "Reason and Passions", I wrote:

The hypocrisy of mature democrats knows no limits. In an interview on the BBC, a former British foreign secretary (J. S.) said that he was slightly injured in a terrorist attack many years earlier. When that happened, he said, he asked himself why the attacker wanted to kill or hurt him when he was not in "quarrel" with him. This is a reasonable question. However, this former secretary strongly advocated the occupation of Iraq (justified by false accusations), which brought horror and death to tens of millions of innocent people who were not in any "quarrel" with this gentle man. The interviewer did not ask the foreign secretary what would he answer to the killed and mutilated Iraqi children if they asked him why had he done that to them when they were "not in quarrel" with him. The hypocrisy of mature democrats has no limits. If They touch one of Us, this is a monstrous attack on innocent people; when We destroy lives of tens of millions of them, this is a promotion of freedom and human rights.

Christian: "The hypocrisy of mature democrats has no limits". Apparently. What about non-democrats?

I criticize those who claim they are "morally superior" to others, although facts do not corroborate their claims. Let me mention what I wrote in "Communication and Control":

In The Peloponnesian War, Thucydides ... describes many horrors that people have been capable of perpetrating and compelled to suffer. ... Among his many brilliant observations, I especially appreciate the following one: the mighty do what they want, the weak suffer what they must. ... This "principle" was a brief lesson in justice and morality, which the Athenian democrats (the stronger) gave to Melians (the weaker). The Melians did not learn the lesson quickly enough, so Athenians destroyed them completely; they put to death all men, sold women and children into slavery ... This is how the ancient democrats behaved: if you did not yield to them, they destroyed you. Modern democrats behave in the same way, but they speak very differently, much less sincerely and more hypocritically.

The mighty have always done what they wanted, and the weak have always suffered what they were compelled to suffer. But barbarians of the past ages used to be more sincere; they did not invent sublime reasons for their aggressive behaviour, as it is normally done today. When they occupy a weaker country, mature democrats call this a liberation. In the Old Testament, Yahweh gives instructions to his chosen people how to exterminate the neighbouring tribes, kill all the people, the old and the children included, all the animals and everything that breathes, and seize the land. Yahweh does not speak about "liberating" other tribes & countries. ... In terms of sincerity, ancient barbarians look like decent people in comparison with the contemporary hypocrites.

We are all hypocritics to a certain extent (except Buddha, maybe).

I live off-line during the extended weekend, which proves that life without the internet is possible!

Regarding, hypocrisy ... Let us leave aside politics and politicians; their discourse obviously deserves to be considered hypocritical. But it seems that common people routinely behave in a partial, biased and selfish way to such an extent that they (we) can be considered (inherently) hypocritical too.

"Maybe it was good for us living as apes in the jungle... " - Well, I think and I wrote that old barbarians were not better (ethically superior) than the new ones are, but they were less hypocritical (not more). In ancient times, it was consider normal that "the mighty do what they want and the weak suffer what they must" (at the individual and collective level). And people did not hide that, as polite people normally do nowadays.

"What about slavery today in post-Khadafi Libya?"

I do not know details about the current situation in Libya, but it seems that the situation is very bad. What I know and what I call hypocrisy is the following thing. I watch EuroNews (the European BBC, CNN, ...) sometimes, and I never heard anybody asking "Why have we done this?" I considered the destruction of Libya not only shameful, but also extremely harmful (suicidal, as I wrote at the time it was taking place) for Europe. But nobody asks anything about this in the media. This is hypocrisy, or simply fear, instead of freedom of thinking & speech.

Christian, your questions are complex, and I cannot answer them properly now (or ever); I will try to do this in a "brief" way.

"What is better, if people openly don't feel shame (despite being obviously immoral) or if they are hypocritical and hide their immorality?"

If you rob me, and "justify" your behaviour by the fact (explanation) that your are stronger, I will consider this a bad behaviour. But if you do the same thing and tell to me that you are doing this for my own benefit, I will consider this even worse. ... However, there are cases when the stronger must do something to the weaker for the benefit of the latter, although the weaker may not be informed well enough to understand this.

"We usually consider honesty to be morally superior over hypocrisy, but can a rigorously honest society be stable despite the unavoidable lack of fairness?"

It seems that every society needs a narrative which justifies the notorious fact that the stronger (or the privileged) exploit the weaker; the question is to what extent can such behaviour be considered "tolerable", "inevitable", "necessary", and so forth. And when such discourse and behaviour should be considered cruel, disgusting and so forth. It is difficult (impossible) to be very precise in such matters. They do not seem quantifiable.

what you describe is not really a sign of hypocrism. It could be that people have different values than oneself, which I think we should appreciate, if the values do not lead to actions that harm us or others. I think that this is a huge challenge: do decide where other values and actions arsing from it should be tolerate or restricted. Without tolerance a society cannot thrive.

"It could be that people have different values than oneself, which I think we should appreciate, ..."

It could be, but I do not think it is. Let me mention what I wrote in my book "Reason and Passions".

I define the criterion of right and wrong behaviour in the following way. Imagine that somebody else behaves in the way you behave: would you call such behaviour right or wrong? If you call something wrong when done by others, then you must not do such things. Imagine that somebody behaves towards you in the way you behave towards others: would you call such behaviour right or wrong? If you call something wrong when done to you, then you must not do such things. I call this principle of behaviour the Mirror Principle because it shows the real face of hypocrites who adorn their ugly behaviour with nice slogans. If people and communities were able to behave in accordance with this simple principle, there would be much less evil and suffering, and the world would be a much more reasonable and pleasant place.

Christian -

Perhaps it is; but Kant writes in a complicated way, and repeats his principle(s) in different ways, so that I am not sure exactly what belongs to him and what does not. Anyway, most of the things I know/say are based on what I learned from others. I interpret and express things in my way, but I do not create out of nothing.

"The ten Commandments were simple."

Hm, I am not sure this is really so. There are two different versions of these commandments. Worse than that, they do not mean what they say. I must mention my book R & P again, because I gathered in my books all my wisdom and ignorance.

1.31 - The God of the Old Testament (Yahweh) ... gave people the command "You shall not kill". However, he did not really mean what he said ... On the very same day when Yahweh gave Moses the tablets that contained this famous commandment, he asked Moses and his priestly clan to kill those members of their own tribe who made the golden calf and danced around it. Moses invited those who were on his side and said to them that God had issued the command that those who danced around the golden calf and worshiped it must be killed. God ordered: "Put your sword on your side, each of you! Go back and forth from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill your brother, your friend, and your neighbour". And so, about three thousand people were killed on that day (Ex, 32:27-29). Therefore, you shall not kill those who follow your God and who kill together with you; but you must kill all others, in your tribe and around it.

Christian: I wrote "The ten Commandments were simple", not "religion is simple" ...

Formally, they were simple; but in practice they were not. The most famous among the Commandments has been "You shall not kill". But at the same day that Yahweh gave Moses this commandment, he required him to kill. So, to be understood properly, these Commandments need additional explanations.

"The ancient gods did not bother too much about ethical or political correctness."

They were similar to the contemporary politicians.

The "Peloponnesian War" took place 431-404 BC; in his excellent book of the same name, Thucydides, a general in that war, described the behaviour of politicians and people of his time; his descriptions show that things have not changed much (if at all) during the last twenty-five centuries.

The contemporary democrats shout slogans about freedom, peace, human rights, and similar nice things. Thucydides reports that the ancient Athenian democrats were shouting the same slogans as the contemporary democrats do. However, history shows that the stronger have always loved and practiced colonial and imperial wars and conquests. Only mutual fear has managed to maintain peace among people and peoples.

Among the many brilliant observations of Thucydides', I especially appreciate the following one: the mighty do what they want, the weak suffer what they must. This was a brief lesson in history and justice, which democratic Athenians (the stronger) gave to Melians (the weaker). The Melians did not learn the lesson quick enough, so Athenians destroyed them in a brutal way. ... This is how the ancient democrats behaved on the international stage: if you did not submit to them, they destroyed you. Modern democrats destroy you when they consider it profitable for them.

However, democrats may make a mistake. The Athenians were not always "the stronger" (as they thought they were); the Peloponnesian War was very bad (suicidal) for Athens; the contemporary democrats behave in a suicidal way too. The destruction of Libya has been such a suicidal enterprise.

not necessarily ..but they learn such attributes from the society and the people around them...nowadays children learn so many good and bad things from internet and cartoons so we need to be very vigilant in this regard to make them fair and just..

Interesting discussion! Following.

Mario, without any doubt in my mind, yes! People are generally hypocrites. However, often. people behave in such hypocritical ways out of ignorance.

Simple example: Many people, including the younger generation, those who keep reciting how "green" they are, insist on buying tall, blunt, wasteful vehicles. Hypocritical behavior, often the result of not understanding that such vehicles will never be as efficient as sleeker and lighter ones, all else equal. A lack of knowledge of basic, classical physics. The hypocrite's narrative being, "they" could make "the engine" more efficient, if "they" were forced to. Always someone else should be taking action.

And as to religious beliefs, including the Ten Commandments and including, certainly, Old Testament stories, such as what you cite and many others, let us not forget. All of these stories were written by hypocritical human beings. No difference should be expected, in their level of internal inconsistency.

Of the ME religious texts, the only one that is remotely consistent, in its teachings of virtue and of God's "merciful" nature, might be the New Testament. And even that has to resort to a "salvation theology," to overcome its own contradictions.

"... not necessarily ..but they (* people *) learn such attributes from the society and the people around them ..."

The big question is who corrupts whom: does society corrupt individuals, or are individuals of so poor quality that it is not possible to construct a good society from such raw material.

"People are generally hypocrites. However, often people behave in such hypocritical ways out of ignorance."

I do not think so. A huge majority of young people around me (students and colleagues) do not want to "sacrifice" anything to achieve what the verbally support. I usually mention air-conditioning, which works always and everywhere (empty rooms and halls included); nobody knows why, and whether it is heating or cooling, and nobody cares about this. This is not a matter of ignorance.

"... Old Testament stories ... were written by hypocritical human beings."

Those stories were written for many purposes. Those stories were everything at that time: politics, business, entertainment ...

Mario,

I do not think so. A huge majority of young people around me (students and colleagues) do not want to "sacrifice" anything to achieve what the verbally support. I usually mention air-conditioning, which works always and everywhere (empty rooms and halls included); nobody knows why, and whether it is heating or cooling, and nobody cares about this. This is not a matter of ignorance.

Heh. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt, so to speak. Maybe they don't understand how air conditioning works. Maybe a class on refrigeration would make at least some of them more directly aware.

(On the other hand, turning air conditioning on and off frequently is not helpful either. Because it takes extra energy just to first dehumidify, then cool down the walls, floors, and ceilings, if they had been allowed to warm up while the AC was off.)

Both education has a big role in the development of this class, as well as that the other party who loves hypocrisy has a greater role in encouraging this class to grow

Albert, you are very creative in justifying what has been happening. This is one of the reasons why things will never change (improve).

Yousif, I think that education is rather irrelevant or powerless. What matters is socioeconomic system. In brutal capitalism, nobody cares for anything except for her/his own interest. This is a "Me first!" society & world.

We can invent countless explanations and useless "fixes", but the emission of all sort of poisons has been on the constant rise.

"... education has become irrelevant because in many countries it is compromised by the money-defines-everything neoliberalist system."

Not only education; the entire life has been reduced to a business enterprise. My native place has been proclaimed the best small city (18 thousand people or so) in my country. But public services are much worse than thirty years ago! Except for tourist industry, which has been growing intensely. But life in that city is getting worse every year. And this city was proclaimed "the best small city for living". Which living? There is no living there; only business.

Mario,

Albert, you are very creative in justifying what has been happening. This is one of the reasons why things will never change (improve).

Yes, but the idea of having to simply sacrifice is not entirely good either! It is also good to say no, let's not just sacrifice, let's instead correct the problems.

Since you mentioned air conditioning, we can talk about power requirements and we can also talk about CFC pollution. CFCs in the upper atmosphere depleted the ozone layer. When the problem was discovered, it was not entirely bad that people refused to do without air conditioning. Instead, better refrigerants were developed, and better methods of reclaiming old refrigerants, so that we have air conditioning and a recovered ozone layer.

At the same time, higher efficiency systems were also developed, to use less electric power, and many countries have substantially increased the amount of renewable energy sources they use. So that part of the problem is also being addressed, still.

So you might say, the refrigeration industry assumes that people are generally hypocrites. True. People want their air conditioning, no matter what. But this does not mean that the refrigeration industry just continues to do what they had been doing. Along with government mandates, new laws and restrictions, they innovate.

That's what make human beings human. It's not money for the sake of money, not for most people. It is money to create a better future.

Speaking of hypocrisy, though. A definite threat to the environment is the tremendous population of humans, and farm animals bred only for humans (livestock), compared to the population of all other land mammals combined. It's scary. You can find several sources for this information:

http://www.kalaharilionresearch.org/2015/01/16/human-vs-livestock-vs-wild-mammal-biomass-earth/

https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html

The pollution caused by this imbalance is considerable. People prefer to talk about money only, or luxuries only, as opposed to something a lot more deep seated and problematic. Innovations in nutrition, shelter, and medicine, have created a population of human beings and livestock that is way beyond what nature would support on its own! Not too many people talk about that, or what to do about it.

> "Yes, but the idea of having to simply sacrifice is not entirely good either!"

I do not ask sacrifices; I speak about throwing away. The corridor at my department is full of light (there is a glass surfaces above each doors), but when I open the door of my office, 72 (12 x 6) fluorescent lamps automatically switch on. When I say that this is slightly stupid, my young colleagues laugh. They never make any comment of that kind; they simply want a "green world".

> "People want their air conditioning, no matter what."

Ok; but air conditioning works in empty halls; it works in my office (by default), although I come to office once weekly, and switch it off immediately. But when I leave, it switches on automatically again, and works until I return. I do not ask sacrifices; I think that some things are simply stupid.

Capitalism created a consumerist mentality; to consume has become the meaning of life. That is the problem and I do not like such behaviour.

> "A definite threat to the environment is the tremendous population of humans, and farm animals bred only for humans (livestock), ..."

This is a problem indeed. And it seems that the only way to stop the increase of population is to engage people in consumerist life; they then produce & consume a lot, and do not have time to produce children.

Incidentally, in one of my books, I wrote that the amount of pollution in the US has increased several times more than the amount of population.

In sum, I hold that consumption is a mental issue, rather than a matter of need or of the "good life" that unnecessary consumption brings about.

Miracles happen!

I wrote: "The corridor at my department is full of light (there is a glass surfaces above each doors), but when I open the door of my office, 72 (12 x 6) fluorescent lamps automatically switch on. When I say that this is slightly stupid, my young colleagues laugh."

Believe on not, they (somebody) removed 3 lamps from each light fitting (fixture), so that we now have only 12 x 3 = 36 lamps at the corridor. So, things are getting better.

Mostly - few exceptions are there

Great class.