obvious hypocrisy?
While I'm recanting, I want to take back something I posted just last week:
I think I was wrong. Not only is the chickenhawk's hypocrisy not obvious, I don't think it's hypocrisy.
Gary Trudeau seems to be anti-war; so am I. Trudeau seems to dislike the chickenhawks; so do I. But while I condemn their values and their power, I think it's wrong to imply that their values are internally inconsistent.
Let me try a parallel: it would be hypocritical to support the War On Drugs while you and your trust-fund buddies have coke parties, but is it hypocritical for someone to support the War On Drugs without joining the police force?
The hypocrisy of the first case is based on an implied universal: it's wrong to do drugs (and of course on the further-implied universal that it's right to use coercion against anything that is wrong). But saying that you support a particular activity on the part of the government does not imply that you think everyone should work for the government.
Supporting a particular war does not imply that everyone should be a soldier; there's no hypocrisy in cheering on the bloodshed from the safety of home. It's evil, but it's not hypocritical.
The War On Drugs is wrong. The war in Iraq is wrong. But I was wrong to imply that those who disagree with me are automatically guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
Monday, November 20, 2006
moron hypocrisy
"more on" hypocrisy (but you knew that)
From today's Doonesbury:
As with pinko tax-dodgers, it's important not to get so caught up in the obvious hypocrisy of the chickenhawks that we fail to identify which part of the hypocritical combination is the evil part.
[...]
I think I was wrong. Not only is the chickenhawk's hypocrisy not obvious, I don't think it's hypocrisy.
Gary Trudeau seems to be anti-war; so am I. Trudeau seems to dislike the chickenhawks; so do I. But while I condemn their values and their power, I think it's wrong to imply that their values are internally inconsistent.
Let me try a parallel: it would be hypocritical to support the War On Drugs while you and your trust-fund buddies have coke parties, but is it hypocritical for someone to support the War On Drugs without joining the police force?
The hypocrisy of the first case is based on an implied universal: it's wrong to do drugs (and of course on the further-implied universal that it's right to use coercion against anything that is wrong). But saying that you support a particular activity on the part of the government does not imply that you think everyone should work for the government.
Supporting a particular war does not imply that everyone should be a soldier; there's no hypocrisy in cheering on the bloodshed from the safety of home. It's evil, but it's not hypocritical.
The War On Drugs is wrong. The war in Iraq is wrong. But I was wrong to imply that those who disagree with me are automatically guilty of intellectual dishonesty.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home