What’s really wrong with hypocrisy?

It’s logically incoherent.

A recent book on the subject is by David Runciman, called Political Hypocrisy, revised edition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2018).

Let’s start with familiar examples:

1. A politician supports defunding the police, which would deprive ordinary citizens of needed protection, but—hypocritically—demands police protection for himself and his family.
2. Ordinary citizens are to be prohibited from privately own guns of a certain kind, but—hypocritically—security details protecting politicians may be armed to the teeth.
3. Hillary Clinton insisted that the testimony of all women be believed, but—hypocritically—not women who came forward with evidence of sexual mistreatment by her husband.  
4. Academia punishes plagiarism severely, but—hypocritically—not someone who is a prominent member of a protected class, such as the black female president of a major university.
5. Politicians claim that hydrocarbons represent an existential threat to mankind, yet—hypocritically—they ride around in gas-guzzling limos and fly private jets.

These examples share the following logically airtight argument structure:

1. An “if-then” generalization.

2. A logically correct inference from 1 of an “if-then” instance with details of a specific case.

3. A statement that the “if” component of the instance is true.

4. A logically correct inference from 3 that the “then” component of the instance is true.

5. A statement that the “then” component of the instance is not, in fact, true.

6. A logically correct inference of the conjunction of 4 and 5, which amounts to a contradiction.

Logic says that contradictions aren’t just false. They are necessarily false; that is, they are logically incoherent.

Let’s apply the 1-6 structure to example C). The reader can easily apply 1-6 to other examples.

1. If a woman claims truthfully and credibly that she was sexually assaulted by a man, then, her claim that she was sexually assaulted by that man is not to be rejected by anyone.

Comment: Hillary Clinton has asserted 1 on a number of occasions, often quite emphatically. Feminists agree.

2. If Juanita Broaddrick claims truthfully and credibly that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, then, Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton is not to be rejected by Hillary Clinton.

Comment: 2 is a logically correct inference from 1, exemplifying 1 with details of a specific case.

3. Juanita Broaddrick claimed truthfully and credibly that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton.

Comment: 3 is factually correct, as reported by fair-minded media outlets.

4. Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton is not to be rejected by Hillary Clinton.

Comment: 4 is a logically correct inference from 2 and 3.

5. Juanita Broaddrick’s claim that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton was, in fact, rejected by Hillary Clinton.

Comment: 5 is factually correct, as reported even by Clinton-friendly media outlets.

6. A logically correct inference of the conjunction of 4 and 5, which amounts to a contradiction, proving that hypocrisy is logically incoherent.

However, expecting the left to take seriously results reached by logical reasoning is unrealistic, to put it mildly. Indeed, the list of views leftists hold that are logically incoherent is appallingly long.

Why anyone with logical sense would vote Democrat is beyond me. Here are examples of Biden Administration decisions that make no logical sense.

• Reliance on Middle East oil when our own production capacity is sufficient, and then some, which Biden blocked as soon as he took office.
• Involvement in a war between a major power, Russia, and a former part of the USSR, Ukraine, when there is absolutely no benefit to the United States.
• Out of control spending on hugely wasteful programs, exemplified by Senator Rand Paul, which ignores the damaging impact of inflation on the economy.
• A porous southern border that lets in foreign nationals by the tens of thousands with no concern whatever how many are criminals, spies or carry deadly diseases.
• Draconian regulations to lessen “carbon footprint,” urged by climate change proponents whose predictions over decades have repeatedly been proved wrong.

It’s high time this country returned to office an administration whose policies made logical sense.

Arnold Cusmariu has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Brown University and entered on duty with the Central Intelligence Agency in 1986 after academia, retiring in 2010. He is the author of Logic for Kids, which enables parents to take charge of the intellectual development of their children and provides tools the education establishment has failed to provide. Reviewing comments can be read at Amazon. The book can also be useful to seniors as a way of staying mentally sharp. Joe Biden is hereby challenged to get through Logic for Kids. 

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License