Photo by Jennifer Phoon

It seems the theme of hypocrisy is still present in my head.  This time, as applied to religious beliefs.  There are many different faiths and belief systems out there, each with their own following.  I’m not talking about any hypocrisy within these beliefs.  I mean the hypocrisy that is present in how people tolerate other views.  Most people are fine with talking about other beliefs and criticizing them, but not all are comfortable when their own beliefs are criticized.

It should be understood by people of religious faith that what they believe in as a path for answers.  Being this, they should know that there are multiple paths available.  Since there are multiple paths available, criticism of the different systems is inevitable.  But some who are  strong believers in their faith are unable to accept any criticism or even agree that their system is one among many.

The type of thinking that allows one to criticize the religions of others, but get offended when their own religion is questioned is hypocritical.  This is the same type of thinking that has caused so much conflict between the Middle East and the Western world.  Many people are quick to assume that it is a fundamental flaw in Islam that causes Muslims to be violent, but this is not the case.  Any strong believers of their own faith would react the same way to “offenses.”  If Christianity did not already dominate world, and was in a minority state as Islam is, Christians might react the same way.  The problem occurs when the followers believe that their faith is the only truth and that it is the only truth for everyone.

The absence of this problem would mean a world where religious issues could be discussed without inflaming any particular group.  People would be able to speak and act openly without the danger of offending anyone.  At the very least, the same people who get offended should be respectful and tolerant of other religious beliefs.  But this also does not exist.  Tolerance is preached universally, but the key is practice it unconditionally, not in a way that conforms to already our existing beliefs.

Photo by Philipp Klinger

The rules and ideals we hold to be true for ourselves and the ones we seek to impose on others must mirror one another.  To do otherwise is hypocrisy.  To expect a certain treatment while we treat others differently is hypocrisy.  When this imbalance exists, the reactions we have to rules and ideals are meaningless.  A rule that is not applied to oneself and others in the same fashion ceases to be a viable rule.

To make my point more clear, I offer the following example.  In my classroom building, the elevators are always quite busy.  As the doors are closing, more people will often run up and open the doors to get inside.  At other times, when I have been inside the elevator when this happens, I notice people grumbling about the delay this causes.  This is so common that now, when a person comes in at the last minute, they will apologize as they enter.  This is baffling to me.  Why would a person find it necessary to apologize for exercising the right that they have to use the elevator?  I asked this person why they apologized, and they told me that it was because people have complained in the past.  I have been using these elevators for over 2 years, and I know that most people have rushed in at the last minute at some point in the course of their schooling here.  The same people who complain about late comers have most likely been in the same situation themselves.

Why complain about someone else doing a thing that we ourselves will do in the same situation?  These hypocritical complainers must view their actions as being excusable because it serves their own interest.  But the actions of the other person are not excusable, because it hinders their own interests.  This practice of taking whatever actions benefit ourselves most creates countless inconsistencies.  To me it is ridiculous to expect to be treated differently than how we treat others.  If everyone were to live in this way, society would cease to function.  This same sort of thinking applies to many other everyday situations.  Cutting people off in traffic and getting angry when cut off.  Taking to long in a line and complaining of others who do the same.  Why can we not think that maybe they are in the same situation we were in when we did the same?

We cannot elevate ourselves above everyone else in how we apply our principles.  If we live by ideals meant to rule only ourselves, then they are not ideals at all, but simply living in a self-serving manner.  If we can notice and eliminate these hypocrisies, a lot of everyday annoyances and frustrations might be eliminated.  Treating others as we expect to be treated.  This lesson is taught since kindergarten, and yet it is one that is not remembered.  I think it’s time to re-apply it.

Photo by Noel Zia Lee

Is the value of a cute and familiar animal greater than that of an unfamiliar animal?  I’m defining familiar in terms of closeness to humans.  Of course this varies across cultures as well.  Eating a dog or cat would seem unthinkable to most people in the United States, but it is commonplace in Asia.  But this bias toward animals that we think are cute or animals we have become accustomed to living among seems inconsistent.  The value of a dog versus the value of a cow does not change with the human opinion.  Both are four-legged mammals and neither have any discernible mental advantages over the other.  So our decision to eat one and adopt the other comes down to how friendly these animals are to us.

We could adopt a subjective view of the world and claim that whatever we perceive as value is value, making the friendliness of the dog its higher value.  But in this view, I would also become acceptable to differentiate among humans like this.  I would be able to kill anyone that I believed had lesser value to me.  Obviously this is not the prevalent philosophy.  The people that eat cows are for the most part, people that think humans have value and certain animals have value.  Outside of the subjective view, we have no logical basis for differentiating among different animals.  Without a logical basis, it is just inconsistency in its most obvious form.

How can a person be against eating dogs, but eat cows?  Most consumers of beef or chicken would not want to cause the death of a cow or chicken, yet they eat them.  It seems that we are just choosing to ignore what’s not in front of us.  It’s more convenient to make these differentiations than to face our inconsistency.  A person who chooses to eat animals should be perfectly willing to kill animals.  Some might be willing to accept the killing but want someone else to do it, even this is fine because they are accepting responsibility.  But to eat meat without wanting animals to die is wrong.  A person who chooses to eat meat and kill the animals that gave rise to the meat must also accept the killing of other animals.  If I choose to kill and eat stray dogs, the beef eater should not tell me that I am wrong.  It would just be a matter of taste.

The existence of an objective moral truth is arguable, so I cannot claim whether it is right to kill animals or not, but either belief should be practiced with complete consistency.  The meat eater should be willing to accept the death of every kind of animal.  The animal rights activist should not cause the death of any animal.  To choose among animals corrupts whatever we believe and we end up with an inconsistent and faulty moral code.

Photo by hr.icio

One of the core beliefs that every person holds, whether they are aware of it or not, concerns a basic fact about human nature.  This belief will either be that human beings are self-interested and individualistic, or that we care about others by nature and not just ourselves.  Which side a person chooses will largely be determined by their experiences and upbringing.  The person who has been affected most by the selfishness of others or is selfish themselves, will choose to justify their behavior by claiming that humans are selfish by nature.  The person who has always been treated kindly and favorably by others will believe that human beings are good and caring of others by nature.

I am defining self-interested/selfish as prioritizing one’s own benefit above that of everyone else, even if it means breaking rules that they have set forth for themselves.  A caring person would be one that thinks of how their actions might negatively affect other people and follows their own rules even to their detriment.

I am more inclined to thing that more people are self-interested, but I don’t think this is a characteristic of humans as a species.  I think this is a learned behavior, something that can be changed, something that is not inherent in us.  There are people who do care about others genuinely, and there are people that don’t.  It is wrong to make an assumption about our race as a whole in order to justify one’s own behavior.  I am not claiming one view to be better than another, that’s a much deeper question of whether there are a set of morals to be followed.  What I’m more concerned about are the people that choose to represent themselves as something they are not.  Most people who are selfish will not want others to see it.  Some of them don’t see it themselves.  But if a person is unwilling to be honest about this belief with the people around them, or to themselves, then there is obviously some sort of conflict in their minds.

If we choose to hide something, then we are admitting to ourselves that it is an undesirable trait.  If we know that we are acting undesirably, then why keep doing it?  The true self-centered person will not choose to masquerade as a a caring member of society for the benefit of others.  So before we can even begin discussing whether it is right to be self-interested or caring of others, we have to first be honest about what we truly believe.  If people are trying to be perceived as caring and act selfishly, then they must choose which one they really agree with.  Most of the time, it is this way because they would like to have the benefit and convenience of being self-interested with the benefit of being viewed as caring.  To me this is an inconsistent behavior.  One of the first steps to becoming aware of who we are is to solve these inconsistencies in our ideals or beliefs about ourselves and the world.  An inconsistent person is one who will always be clueless about who they really are.