And here’s a counterpoint. I said that what I describe in the parent comment is…
a form of “hypocrisy” which is not best understood by treating the “hypocrite” as a hostile agent
But is that quite true? It seems to me that it’s true only if you accept (or would accept, if it were put to you) the truth of the original, intended, proposition (of the form “People of group A should do X.”—along with its implicature, “People not of group A need not do X.”).
Otherwise, consider the situation, seen from the viewpoint of someone to whom the “hypocrite” is speaking, and who does not (necessarily) accept that original proposition (nor its implicature):
Someone—let’s call her Alice—is claiming that “everyone should do X”. But Alice, herself, is not doing X. Upon investigation, it becomes clear to you that what Alice in fact thinks is that “people of group A should do X”; and, further, that Alice does not consider herself to be in group A, but does consider you to be in group A. But this means that Alice considers herself to be better than you, in some sense! Can you really trust Alice’s recommendations, then? Furthermore: others will surely come to the same conclusions as you have. Is it acceptable to allow Alice to flout her proposed rule, given that this, by implication, is a signal—first, that Alice is not in group A (and therefore of higher status); and second, that Alice is exempt from the rules, without even needing an explicit exemption (and that, too, is status-increasing)?
Alternatively:
Someone—let’s call her Alice—is claiming that “everyone should do X”. But Alice, herself, is not doing X. Upon investigation, it becomes clear to you that what Alice in fact thinks is that “people of group A should do X”; and, further, that Alice does not consider herself to be in group A—nor, indeed, does she consider you to be of group A… but she did not share any of these considerations with you. (Why didn’t she? Well, because that is dangerous for her; to speak in an impolitic way, even to one who may be expected to sympathize with the sentiment, is risky.) What is Alice then, but a hostile agent? If you took her words at face value, then here you’d be, doing X, to your own detriment; while Alice, hypocritically, abstains (and reaps the benefits of that abstention).
Both of these patterns are not hypothetical; they occur, with some regularity, “in the wild”. (Concrete examples might derail the thread, so I will refrain from giving any.)
And here’s a counterpoint. I said that what I describe in the parent comment is…
But is that quite true? It seems to me that it’s true only if you accept (or would accept, if it were put to you) the truth of the original, intended, proposition (of the form “People of group A should do X.”—along with its implicature, “People not of group A need not do X.”).
Otherwise, consider the situation, seen from the viewpoint of someone to whom the “hypocrite” is speaking, and who does not (necessarily) accept that original proposition (nor its implicature):
Someone—let’s call her Alice—is claiming that “everyone should do X”. But Alice, herself, is not doing X. Upon investigation, it becomes clear to you that what Alice in fact thinks is that “people of group A should do X”; and, further, that Alice does not consider herself to be in group A, but does consider you to be in group A. But this means that Alice considers herself to be better than you, in some sense! Can you really trust Alice’s recommendations, then? Furthermore: others will surely come to the same conclusions as you have. Is it acceptable to allow Alice to flout her proposed rule, given that this, by implication, is a signal—first, that Alice is not in group A (and therefore of higher status); and second, that Alice is exempt from the rules, without even needing an explicit exemption (and that, too, is status-increasing)?
Alternatively:
Someone—let’s call her Alice—is claiming that “everyone should do X”. But Alice, herself, is not doing X. Upon investigation, it becomes clear to you that what Alice in fact thinks is that “people of group A should do X”; and, further, that Alice does not consider herself to be in group A—nor, indeed, does she consider you to be of group A… but she did not share any of these considerations with you. (Why didn’t she? Well, because that is dangerous for her; to speak in an impolitic way, even to one who may be expected to sympathize with the sentiment, is risky.) What is Alice then, but a hostile agent? If you took her words at face value, then here you’d be, doing X, to your own detriment; while Alice, hypocritically, abstains (and reaps the benefits of that abstention).
Both of these patterns are not hypothetical; they occur, with some regularity, “in the wild”. (Concrete examples might derail the thread, so I will refrain from giving any.)