With rights come responsibilities: how coronavirus is a pandemic of hypocrisy



Shutterstock

Luke Zaphir, The University of Queensland

It’s after work and you’ve gone to the supermarket to grab some ingredients for dinner. You’re tired, anxious and pretty hungry. Plus you have to put on a mask because a thousand other people are there, and social distancing is hard to enforce at this moment. Now you’re uncomfortable, on top of everything.

We all feel this way sometimes. But we tolerate it because there’s a pandemic and we all have to do our part to keep everyone safe.

Except that one person.

There’s that one person at the front of the line being asked to step out and put on a mask before coming into the shop. And they’re putting on a scene, yelling about their rights to go unmasked, to be able to breathe, to be free of oppression.

“Everyone else can wear a mask if they choose but not I,” says the person. “I have rights and I will be free.”

This is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is when we are inconsistent in our morality. We commonly refer to it as “saying one thing and doing another”.

Anti-maskers believe they have rights. But in refusing to wear a mask, they are denying other people the right to live in security. Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”. These rights are inextricably interwoven. Freedom without safety is arguably not freedom at all.

The primary way we become hypocrites, strangely enough, is being too flexible in our thinking — a cognitive flexibility called abstraction. Flexible thinking can be about keeping an open mind, but the capacity to warp one’s thinking processes can also make double standards acceptable.




Read more:
How to talk to someone who doesn’t wear a mask, and actually change their mind


We create loopholes in the application of the rules because we’ve created those rules much too theoretically, which doesn’t gel with real world settings.

Why is hypocrisy so bad?

When we are hypocritical, we create injustices. We may fail to do the right thing, which might hurt people or even make them sick. But the biggest problem with hypocrisy is that it causes a complete breakdown of our own personal truth.

If we believe in a principle, but don’t apply it ourselves, that principle is essentially meaningless.

Many dictatorships and fascists are fantastic hypocrites. They often say they are defending some theoretical value – like national security, cultural tradition or even freedom — but there’s no value or meaning in an abstract notion of security or freedom if you murder and oppress your people.

Man pulling a mask of his face off his head.
How can you trust someone who says one thing, but acts differently?
Shutterstock

Not all hypocrisy ends with bloodshed but we can have some pretty poor outcomes regardless. One of the more fundamental hypocrisies comes from ignoring the responsibility that comes with every right.

You want the right to live? Then you have a responsibility to the rights of others to live.

You want to own stuff? You have a responsibility to respect the property rights of others.

You want to use a public space? You have a responsibility to share that space with others.

To believe you have a right without a corresponding responsibility is hypocritical — a double standard where you’ve likely considered the abstract principle but not the specific situation.

Why is it bad, particularly now?

Hypocrisy erodes the value behind rights and truth, so they’re essentially worthless. Democracy is fundamentally about consent of the governed — we give our informed consent through voting and political participation. Informed consent requires accurate information though. Without being able to know the truth, we have no ability to give consent.




Read more:
Post-truth politics and why the antidote isn’t simply ‘fact-checking’ and truth


Our democracy erodes away with every hypocrisy and lie told to undermine expertise. It’s a well-known arguing tactic to discredit opposition to win a debate but we simply don’t have the luxury of this kind of sophistry during a pandemic.

We may not agree on what we need to do but right now we can’t afford to ignore evidence and truth.

Take public goods. These are shared spaces and qualities we all benefit from: education, clean air and water, health and the environment.

Letter tiles spelling 'truth' being covered up by sand.
Hypocrisy can erode truth.
Shutterstock

Without the public good of health, we get sick, the economy shuts down, we lose loved ones to disease. Our quality of life drops dramatically without good public health.

A hypocritical viewpoint says: “I’m willing to benefit from good public health but I’m not willing to maintain it”.

Hypocrites never would directly think or say this. Instead, they would see the issue as a fulfilment of a different abstract right. This might look like “I have a right to be unmasked in public”.




Read more:
How not to fall for coronavirus BS: avoid the 7 deadly sins of thought


This right may exist, or it may not. However, if you think public health is a good thing but you aren’t willing to take a basic measure of responsibility for it — like wearing a mask — that’s hypocrisy. It can make a disaster worse for everyone.

What can we do to check ourselves for hypocrisy?

One of the best ways to avoid hypocrisy is to make our own moral principles far more specific. Put that abstract principle into context.

Say your principle is

I have a right to live unmasked.

That’s not too contentious but it is vague enough to be abused.

Applying context to that principle could look like this:

I have a right to live unmasked even when I’m possibly an asymptomatic carrier of the worst disease to hit our country in a century.

It’s a lot harder to defend a belief like this one.

We don’t have to share common ethics from person to person, but we do have to be consistent with ourselves. If we’re charitable and authentic in how we interpret a situation, we gain the ability to construct much stronger, much more consistent moral beliefs.The Conversation

Luke Zaphir, Researcher for the University of Queensland Critical Thinking Project, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Australian Politics: 14 July 2013


With the return of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister in Australia, things have been moving along fairly quickly in Australian politics. Time of course is running out as an election looms, so time is necessarily of the essence. One of the areas that the ALP has moved to address is the carbon tax, with Kevin Rudd’s government moving toward an emissions trading scheme. This has brought the typical and expected responses from the opposition, as well as charges of hypocrisy from the Greens. For more visit the following links:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/kevin-rudd-confirms-government-to-scrap-fixed-carbon-price-20130714-2pxqi.html

The link below is to an article that pretty much sums up the situation currently in Australian politics I think – well worth a read.

For more visit:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/tony-abbott-fall-stunt-men

Also causing continuing angst in Australia is the issue of asylum seekers and boat people. There has been even more terrible news from the seas surrounding Christmas Island, with yet another asylum seeker tragedy involving a boat from Indonesia.

Around the edges of the mainstream parties are those of Bob Katter and Clive Palmer. There are stories of an alleged financial offer from Clive Palmer’s ‘Palmer United Party’ to join with ‘Katter’s Australian Party’ for $20 million dollars and form the combined ‘Katter United Australian Party.’ For more visit the links below:

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/palmer-denies-deal-with-katters-party/story-e6frfku9-1226679175607
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-14/katter2c-palmer-at-odds-over-claims-mining-magnate-offered-fin/4819098

And finally, for just a bit of a chuckle – not much of one – just a small chuckle, have a read of the following article linked to at:

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/turnbull-still-not-laughing-at-tonys-internet-humour/story-fnii5s3z-1226679169349

Indian Student Stabbed in Melbourne & India’s Hypocrisy


Tragically an Indian student has been stabbed to death in Melbourne. There is at this stage no indication to suggest a racially motivated attack. There have, however, been a growing number of attacks on Indian students in Australia that do appear to have a racial motivation behind them.

Overall, Australia is a multicultural country that is very accepting of all races, no matter where people have originally come from. Multiculturalism is part of the Australian identity.

It is indeed a terrible event that has taken place in Melbourne. The other attacks on Indian students around the country is also an outrage and is not Australian. My thoughts are with the families of those that have suffered in all of these attacks.

Having said the above, I cannot suffer comments coming from India and from Indians within Australia that these attacks now make Australia a terrorist nation. I find such comments unbelievable in the extreme. They also expose the hypocrisy of the Indian government and Indian state governments, that have allowed Hindu terrorist extremism to continue unabated against Christians within their own country.

Hindu extremist attacks on Christians within India have resulted in many deaths, thousands of displaced refugees, and many hundreds of homes, churches and other buildings being burnt to the ground. Large numbers of Indians responsible for these attacks are being released from prison because of a ‘lack of evidence.’

Please, react in horror and disgust at the attacks on your students within Australia – I understand that fully. It is unacceptable. However, look in your own backyard before pronouncing Australia a terrorist country. It would be laughable if the situation wasn’t as serious as it is.

GOOD FRIDAY FISH EATING HYPOCRISY


On ‘Good Friday’ the fish markets of the so-called ‘Christian World’ are never busier (and during the days leading up to Good Friday), as the many traditionalists get their fish for their meals on Good Friday. Red meat is not eaten. So why this tradition – especially by those among us (the majority) who state they reject Christianity or who reject it by their behaviour?

Firstly, hypocrisy is a major factor here. Many of these people are simply hypocrites. They want nothing to do with Jesus Christ, Christianity or the Church, yet feel that they are being good ‘Christians’ by not eating red meat on Good Friday. This little tradition will ensure their position of being ‘OK,’ especially if Christianity should prove to be correct. This tradition will ensure they are still ‘good enough’ for heaven, etc.

Why Protestants should engage in a Roman Catholic practice is completely ridiculous. This eating of fish is supposed to be an act of penance – which is just another invention of that heretical church. The Bible says nothing of such a practice – it is the mere invention of men.

I find this practice by Evangelicals (especially those that are Reformed) to be quite repulsive and is yet another slide to a mere nominal all-inclusive Christianity, that has lost its grounding.

Much could be said about the entire Easter fiasco and its place alongside Biblical Christianity (or rather its lack of place), along with other pagan and papist ceremonies that have found their way into ‘Christianity’ over the centuries.

Me – I ate a cheese and bacon pie today. Perhaps not a very healthy choice, but it was what I thought I might enjoy on this particular day.

Report from the Christian Telegraph

TURKEY: MUSLIM SENTENCED FOR STABBING PRIEST IN IZMIR


Assailant influenced by TV series defaming Christian missionaries.

ISTANBUL, January 12 (Compass Direct News) – A judge in Turkey sentenced a 19-year-old Muslim to four-and-a-half years in prison on Jan. 5 for stabbing a Catholic priest in the coastal city of Izmir in December 2007.

Ramazan Bay, then 17, had met with Father Adriano Franchini, a 65-year-old Italian and long-term resident of Turkey, after expressing an interest in Christianity following mass at St. Anthony church. During their conversation, Bay became irritated and pulled out a knife, stabbing the priest in the stomach.

Fr. Franchini was hospitalized but released the next day as his wounds were not critical.

Bay, originally from Balikesir 90 miles north of Izmir, reportedly said he was influenced by an episode of the TV serial drama “Kurtlar Vadisi” (“Valley of the Wolves”). The series caricatures Christian missionaries as political “infiltrators” who pay poor families to convert to Christianity.

“Valley of the Wolves” also played a role in a foiled attack on another Christian leader in December 2007. Murat Tabuk reportedly admitted under police interrogation that the popular ultra-nationalist show had inspired him to plan the murder of Antalya pastor Ramazan Arkan. The plan was thwarted, with the pastor receiving armed police protection and Antalya’s anti-terrorism police bureau ordering plainclothes guards to accompany him.

Together with 20 other Protestant church leaders, Arkan on Dec. 3, 2007 filed a formal complaint with the Istanbul State Prosecutor’s office protesting “Valley of the Wolves” for “presenting them as a terrorist group and broadcasting scenes making them an open target.”

The series has portrayed Christians as selling body parts, being involved in mafia activities and prostitution and working as enemies of society in order to spread the Christian faith.

“The result has been innumerable, direct threats, attacks against places of worship and eventually, the live slaughter of three innocent Christians in Malatya,” the complaint stated.

The Protestant leaders demanded that Show TV and the producers of “Valley of the Wolves” be prosecuted under sections 115, 214, 215, 216 and 288 of the Turkish penal code for spreading false information and inciting violence against Christians.

The past three years saw six separate attacks on priests working across the country, the most serious of which resulted in the death of Father Andreas Santoro in Trabzon. As with Fr. Franchini, many of the attacks were coupled with accusations of subversion and “proselytizing.”

Although a secular republic, Turkey has a strong nationalistic identity of which Islam is an integral part.

Television shows such as “Valley of the Wolves” may not be the norm, but the recent publication of a state high school textbook in which “missionary activity” is also characterized as destructive and dangerous has raised questions about Turkey’s commitment to addressing prejudice and discrimination.

“While there is a general attitude [of antipathy], I think that the state feeds into it and propagates it,” said a spokesperson for the Alliance of Protestant Churches of Turkey (TEK). “If the State took a more accepting and more tolerant attitude I think the general attitude would change too.”

At the end of 2007 TEK issued a summery of the human rights violations that their members had suffered that year. As part of a concluding appeal they urged the state to stop an “indoctrination campaign” aimed at vilifying the Christian community.

TEK will soon release its rights violations summery for 2008, and it is likely that a similar plea will be made.

“There is police protection, and they have caught some people,” the TEK spokesperson said. “There is an active part of the state trying to prevent things, but the way it is done very much depends on the situation and how at that moment the government is feeling as far as putting across a diplomatic and political statement. There is hypocrisy in it.”

A survey carried out in 2005 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project also suggested a distinctly negative attitude towards Christians among Turks, with 63 percent describing their view of Christians as “unfavorable,” the highest rate among countries surveyed.

Niyazi Oktem, professor of law at Bilgi University and president of a prominent inter-faith organization in Turkey called the Intercultural Dialogue Platform, said that while the government could do more to secure religious freedom, he would not characterize Turkish sentiment towards Christians as negative.

“I can say that general Turkish feeling towards the Christian religion is not hostile,” said Oktem. “There could be, of course, some exceptions, but this is also the case in Christian countries towards Islam.”

Report from Compass Direct News

ORIGIN AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE: By John L. Dagg


1. Origin

We are rational beings; and, as such, the desire of knowledge is natural to us. In early childhood, as each new object of interest comes under our notice, we ask, who made it; and as we advance in years, the same inquisitiveness attends us, and prompts us to investigate the sources of knowledge which are ever opening before us. Brutes may look with indifference on the works of God, and tread under foot the productions of human ingenuity, without inquiry into their origin; but rational men cannot act thus without violence to the first principles of their nature. Among the objects which have occupied a large space in human thought, and which claim our consideration, the BIBLE stands conspicuous. Its antiquity; the veneration in which it has been held, and continues to be held, by a large part of mankind; and the influence which it has manifestly exerted on their conduct and happiness, are sufficient, if not to awaken higher emotions, at least to attract our curiosity, and excite a desire to know its origin and true character.

We are moral beings. The Bible comes to us as a rule of conduct. The claim which is set up for it is, that it is the highest standard of morals, admitting no appeal from its decisions. We are, therefore, under the strongest obligations to examine the foundation of this claim.

We are, if the Bible is true, immortal beings. Heathen philosophers have conjectured that man may be immortal; and infidels have professed to believe it; but, if we exclude the Bible, we have no means of certain knowledge on this point. Yet it is a matter of the utmost importance. If we are immortal, we have interests beyond the grave which infinitely transcend all our interests in the present life. What folly, then, it is, to reject the only source of information on this momentous subject! Besides if we have such interests in a future world, we have no means of knowing how to secure them, except from the Bible. Shall we throw this book from us, and trust to vain conjecture, on questions in which our all is involved? it would be folly and madness.

Let us then inquire, whence came the Bible? Is it from heaven, or from men? If it is from men, is it the work of good men, or of bad men?

If bad men had been the authors of the Bible, they would have made it to their liking. If made to please them, it would please other men of like character. But it is not a book in which bad men delight. They hate it. Its precepts are too holy; its doctrines too pure; its denunciations against all manner of iniquity too terrible. It is not at all written according to the taste of such men. There are men who prize the Bible; who pore over its pages with delight; who have recourse to it in all their perplexities and sorrows; who seek its counsels to guide them, and its instructions to make them wise; who esteem its words more than gold, and feast on them as their sweetest food. But who are these men? They are those who detest all deceit and falsehood, and whom this very book has transformed, from men of iniquity and vice, to men of purity and holiness. It is impossible, therefore, that the Bible should be the work of bad men.

It remains that the Bible must be either from heaven or from good men. So pure a stream cannot proceed from a corrupt fountain. If it be from good men, they will not willfully deceive us. Let us, then, look to the account which they have given of its origin: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” 1. “The things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” 2. “And so we have the prophetic word more firm, to which ye do well to take heed, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the morning star arise in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of private invention. For never, at any time, was prophecy brought by the will of man, but the holy men of God spake, being moved by the Holy Ghost.” 3.

It may, perhaps, be objected to the use of these quotations, that we permit the Bible to speak for itself; but this is no unprecedented procedure. If a stranger were passing through our neighborhood, and we were desirous to know whence he came, it would not be unnatural to propose the inquiry to the man himself. If there were about him marks of honesty and simplicity of character, and if, after our most careful investigations, it should appear that he has no evil design to accomplish, and no interest to promote by deceiving us, we should rely on the information we derive from him. Such a stranger is the Bible; and why may we not rely on its testimony concerning itself? Nay, it is not a stranger. Though claiming a heavenly origin, it has long dwelt on earth, and gone in and out among us, a familiar companion. We have been accustomed to hear its words; and have known them to be tried with every suspicion, and every scrutiny, and no falsehood has been detected. More, it has been among us as a teacher of truth and sincerity; and truth and sincerity have abounded just in proportion as its teachings have been heeded. Old men of deceit have shrunk from its probings, and trembled at its threatenings; and young men have been taught by it to put away all lying and hypocrisy. Can it be that the Bible itself is a deceiver and impostor? Impossible! It must be, what it claims to be, a book from heaven – the Book of God.

 

This Article Continued at:

http://www.particularbaptist.com/library/dagg_doctrine_004.html

 

NOTE: This article is part of John L. Dagg’s ‘A Treatise on Christian Doctrine.’ This book is available at:

http://www.particularbaptist.com/library/dagg_doctrine.html

RUSSIA LOOKING MORE SOVIET EACH DAY


Has anyone else noticed how Russia is looking more ‘Soviet’ era with each passing day? It was expected, certainly by me, that when Putin left office that the new guy would be both a clone of the former KGB leader and more than likely a puppet.

With the war that has broken out with Georgia over the breakaway region of Georgia known as South Ossetia, Russia is looking even more like the Soviet era menace that it once was.

Sure, a good number of South Ossetia’s population is Russian, but how quickly has Russia intervened in an ‘internal’ situation of Georgia’s – something which Russia and its friends like China, are quick to use as an argument to not intervene in global troubles. Yet when it is something that Russia feels strongly about, in they go as strongly as they can – hypocrisy on a global scale!

Russia ought to be condemned for its action against Georgia and for encouraging the breakaway region which it alone has recognised as an independent region.

This action by Russia is typical of its usual hardline approach. Think of what it did to Chechnya. It also brings a reminder of the Soviet interventions in Eastern Europe whenever they felt like doing so in the 20th century.

Russia, looking more Soviet each day.

A Current Affair – Hypocrites


Here in Australia we have a TV show known as ‘The Chaser’s War on Everything.’ It is a satirical look at events from an Australian perspective. It can often be quite crude and more than a little bit silly. Still, it is certainly an ‘Australian’ type show.

In a recent episode, one of the boys followed a mobile advertising bill board on the back of a truck while in their own truck having a go at mobile advertising bill boards. In this ‘skit’ they followed the mobile billboard around Sydney.

A couple of days later another Australian show on a rival network, ‘A Current Affair,’ took a pot shot at ‘The Chaser’s War on Everything’ for dangerous driving, stalking, harassing the drivers, etc.

Now interestingly, ‘A Current Affair’ has just run a story on council members on a junket, spending tax payers money to have a junket. In doing the story, the reporter for the show followed council members around for several days, including some while they were driving – now call be a few sandwiches short of a picnic if you like, but isn’t that the same thing that they had a go at ‘The Chaser’s War on Everything?’ Isn’t this known as hypocrisy?

Maybe this particular TV network is jealous of ‘The Chaser’s War on Everything’ because their own show, ‘The Nation,’ is so very, very lame and is failing? Could this be the reason – they have tried to cash in on ‘The Chaser’s War on Everything’ and their success, by doing a bit of ‘similar’ comedy and satire – sadly for them the show stinks and is really quite useless.

Perhaps ‘A Current Affair’ should just concentrate on its own poor performance and return to real news and current affairs, rather than reporting on stories like women who buy three shoes a week, men who wear hats, etc… OK, not quite that useless, but not far off it.