The Honest Hypocrite

I stumbled upon this train of thought thinking about how I rate the 43.5 Presidents that there have been so far, and specifically about Thomas Jefferson. I was recently discussing Jefferson and Adams with my grandmother, who commented that Jefferson is basically just a complete hypocrite. I can't really disagree with that assessment; after all, the man owned slaves, and the only way to avoid being a hypocrite if you own slaves is to be philosophically pro-slavery and Jefferson was not that, so he was a hypocrite (I think he was to some degree in other ways as well). Nevertheless, I'm quite fond of the man. Part of that, I think, is my general inclination in favor of anyone who calls themselves a Democrat, throughout history, but it's not just that; after all, I can't stand Andrew Jackson or Polk through Buchanan. So here's my theory: there are different varieties of hypocrites, and many of them are not all that repugnant, not necessarily. So here's my typology:



The Moral Non-Hypocrite: This is a person with lofty ideals and who lives up to them, more or less. It is also probably a person who is endeavoring to live up to those ideals constantly.

The Unwitting Hypocrite: This is a person with lofty ideals who, by some external/objective standard, fails to live up to them in significant ways, but is not aware that their behavior contradicts their ideals. There might be some amount of doublethink involved, or just some degree of not making the connection.

The Honest Hypocrite: This is a person with lofty ideals who fails to live up to them in significant ways, and knows it. They know they don't conform to their own standards, but they genuinely believe in those standards nonetheless. Theoretically an honest hypocrite can either try to better match their own ideals or not really try that hard.

The Machiavellian Hypocrite: This is a person whose behavior falls short of the moral standards they espouse, but who espouses those standards without really believing in them. Some might consider many politicians to fall into this category.

The Immoral Non-Hypocrite: This is a person who behaves in what might generally be considered immoral ways but who is completely and flagrantly open about that, and does not espouse any particularly lofty set of moral standards either with conviction or as a show.

Note: there are a lot of judgment calls in those descriptions, and I'm not really interested in the specifics of making those judgment calls for this purpose. There have been many throughout history who held white supremacy to be a very lofty ideal indeed; I disagree with them, but for the purposes of this typology that is all irrelevant.

It should be fairly non-controversial that the Moral Non-Hypocrite is a good person and the Immoral Non-Hypocrite is a bad person. I would say that the Unwitting Hypocrite is someone of perhaps questionable judgment, or maybe a somewhat hypoactive conscience (if they're actively using doublethink rather than just "not getting it"), but not a genuinely morally despicable person. They might even just be someone with whom one disagrees about a matter of fact, such as whether non-human animals are similar enough to humans to deserve similar levels of compassion and protections (I know a great many people who fall into this category). Likewise I think most people, possibly including Niccolo Machiavelli himself, would say that my Machiavellian Hypocrite is a fairly morally repugnant person, though they might be a person of excellent judgment.

In the middle, then, lies the Honest Hypocrite, and I contend that this is what Thomas Jefferson was. I also think it is genuinely possible to be an Honest Hypocrite: that is, I think it is possible to believe strongly in a certain moral standard even while recognizing one's own failure to meet that standard. And if someone is going to fail to meet a given moral standard (that I agree with, see: white supremacy), I think it's better to have them genuinely believe in that standard than not, partially because it might spur them toward self-improvement. I respect peoples' right to be somewhat hypocritical in the sense of believing in a stronger set of morals than they themselves follow. I also respect my right, and anyone's right, to disapprove of the behavior of such people, but I think that for me at least it is a genuine mitigating factor.

Finally, on a somewhat different scale, there's the following category:

The Inverted Hypocrite: This is a person whose behavior is probably as upright and moral as that of the Moral Non-Hypocrite, but who does not genuinely believe in a lofty moral standard. This could just be someone who is kind of moral by accident, or more likely someone who genuinely behaves in a moral manner for some self-serving reason. In some sense society is very fond of these people, since they might obey criminal justice codes even if they don't agree with them. It could also be an ambitious politician who puts themself on their best behavior all the time so that they can gain higher office.

What to think of such people? In a sense, they're less genuinely moral than even the Honest Hypocrite; on the other hand, as I said, they're very useful in society, simply because they behave well and when you come right down to it society doesn't really give a damn about peoples' moral philosophies per se. Jesus, on the other hand, did: from what I remember, most of the people he accused of being hypocrites were those who outwardly behaved perfectly but did not have true inner faith. (Another standard I disagree with, but there's a debate for another day.)

Of course, deciding who falls into which category requires deciding what is and isn't moral, and what constitutes sufficiently moral behavior. That-all is a fairly sticky debate, but I think there's something interesting in simply considering the different ways there can be a disconnect between a person' behavior and their ideals, and how not all of them are that wicked.