- Re: The Real Problem of Hypocrisy for Extinction Rebellion Archived Message
Posted by John Monro
on July 29, 2019, 9:38 pm, in reply to "The Real Problem of Hypocrisy for Extinction Rebellion"
|
I've written precisely on this subject previously in these pages. The slur of "hypocrisy" against certain people for the views they hold and proselytise because their own life style appears to contradict these views. It's an easy charge to make, and difficult to counter, because of course this mismatch or is pretty well universal. There'll be few Green Party MPs around the world who don't make use of most of the products of our industrial civilisation - the computers they use for their work and public interactions, the devices in their homes, their gas central heating, probably car ownership, air travel etc etc. So does the make them, like these protesters and their supposed lattes, hypocrites? I think the above article does helpfully examine this dichotomy, relating the matter to individual action vs community change. That it is absolutely self-evident if those human beings concerned enough about our planet were to take it upon themselves to live an ecological virtuous life-style, while the other 90% of humanity found this impossible to do, either because they'd like to, but failed, or because they fundamentally disagreed any change was needed, then it's plain our environmental crisis will not be addressed. What is happening is imperfect individuals and groups, because we're all imperfect, are trying to change community behaviour by appealing, coercing or forcing those that actually have power to change things to do so. That's moral activism not hypocrisy. But there's another argument, this charge of hypocrisy is a misuse of the true meaning of the word. A hypocrite is someone who states he/she believes one thing, but actually believes another. Note well, basically hypocrisy is a lie to others, family, community, nation. Hypocrisy is not preaching one thing, and failing sometimes to live up to one's ideals, that might be mere human failure, but it would be hypocrisy if such actions were more obviously a total disregard for the principals which you keep espousing. It's the minister who encourages prayer and deference to God, but long since lost his belief. It's the politician who says he understands the plight of the poor, and maybe even puts some money aside for their assistance, but in reality feels the poor are the authors of their own misfortune, but only states this belief because it's politically convenient. etc etc. Rhisiart makes a plea for us to live a life more in keeping with what we espouse. Nothing wrong with this. I believe Rhisiart you live in some special fastness in deepest Wales, with a bit of land to grow your vegetables and a small plot for your hemp, for clothes, of course. But you still use a computer, and I don't know if you have a car or how you heat your home. But honestly, Rhisiart, is this life style available but to a few in the crowded island of the UK? Perhaps it could be to more people than presently, but doesn't it first require change in the system to deliver this? But you don't have to live this life-style to know that the way you do live is unsustainable and make you wan't to do something about it, nor should others make assumptions about what life-style you do have. The "latte" charge in the video is an example in point. How does she know these protesters are part of the "latte" culture. There are a huge number of people in the UK who'd never be able to afford a latte - whose existence is marked by the constant scrabbling for enough resources for themselves and their families. Yet this charge was thrown off quite thoughtlessly. So easy to charge hypocrisy when you don't even know the people whom you're insulting. Fortunately others in the panel made some good counter arguments with a bit of humour along the way to sweeten them. |