Is Hypocrisy Always a Vice?

THE CASUAL OBSERVER OF American politics could easily infer that the only trait common to Democrats and Republicans is hypocrisy. Consider a dated, but bipartisan, example. Democrats accused the Republican members of Congress who voted to impeach President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair of hypocrisy when it was revealed that some of those same Republicans had adulterous affairs of their own. Republicans accused those Democrats who criticized Clinton's questionable last-minute pardons of hypocrisy when, on their view, the same abuse of power exhibited in the pardons was present in, inter alia, the charges of perjury and obstruction of justice that led to impeachment.

Unfortunately, hypocrisy is not limited to politicians. During the past several months, the Catholic Church in the United States has been buffeted by scandals involving a small number of clergy who sexually abused children and teenagers. This horrific situation is made worse by revelations that several bishops have tried to conceal these crimes, not only from the police and the media, but also from the parishioners who were shepherded by these pedophile/ephebophile priests. Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of The New Republic, speaks for a number of commentators when he claims that the scandal "exposes the hypocrisy and dysfunction at the heart of the hierarchy." ¹

Qua philosopher, I am uninterested in which political party is more hypocritical. Nor do I wish to pass judgment on whether a number of Catholic bishops in America are hypocrites. My question, rather, is whether hypocrisy is always a vice. To answer this question, I will employ some of the philosophical distinctions drawn by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, and the examples of hypocrisy offered by Dante in his Inferno. I will argue that hypocrisy, properly understood, is a vice, but that its scope is narrower than is commonly thought. Many of the deeds we today mistakenly call 'hypocritical' are, strictly speaking, not instances of hypocrisy but examples of either inconsistency or what Aristotle and Aquinas called 'incontinence.' ² I also will argue that there are two other serious problems with our wider use of the term 'hypocrisy.' First, it makes acts of hypocrisy virtually unavoidable. Second, it risks emptying the term of its significance. Thus, while hypocrisy is a vice, what is called 'hypocrisy' is not always a vice.

I. What Is a Vice?

In order to determine whether hypocrisy is always a vice, we must first determine what a vice is. Clearly vice is the contrary of moral virtue. ³ A moral virtue is a firm character state ⁴ that makes people and their actions to be good, ⁵ where to be good qua human being is to be perfect or complete according to our nature as rational beings. ⁶ Correspondingly, a vice is a firm character state that makes people and their actions to be bad, that is, to be disposed in a way that is not fitting to our nature as rational beings. So, for example, the virtue of temperance disposes people to desire in a moderate way, as determined by right reason, the pleasures of the table, and then to act accordingly. ⁷ The vice of gluttony, on the other hand, disposes people to desire those same pleasures inordinately, that is, contrary to right reason, and then to overindulge in those pleasures when given the opportunity. ⁸

Now states of character are generally acquired by repeatedly acting in a certain way, over time—virtues by repeatedly acting according to right reason, and vices by repeatedly acting contrary to right reason. ⁹ Aristotle remarks, "It is well said, then, that it is by doing just acts that the just person is produced, and by doing temperate acts, the temperate person; without doing these no one would have even the prospect of being good." ¹⁰ Once ingrained into a person's character, both virtues and vices are difficult to dislodge. It goes without saying...