Stephen Kaufman, M.D., Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA)
Peacemaking, part 4: Does Hypocrisy Matter?
Last essay, I noted that peace activists who eat meat and other animal
products appear to be hypocritical. Should animal activists focus on
hypocrisy?
Appearing to be consistent strengthens one’s argument. People who don’t eat
animal products are more effective opponents of factory farming. Otherwise,
the focus easily shifts away from factory farming to why they eat the animal
products.
However, as Mary Midgely noted, a man who is in the habit of breaking
people’s arms is correct when he says that we shouldn’t break people’s legs.
Charges of hypocrisy focus on the messenger rather than the message, and the
implication of the charge of hypocrisy is that messenger is acting in bad
faith. In other words, it shifts the focus to the speaker’s motivations.
This generally leads to unproductive conversations, for several reasons.
First, the speaker’s motivations don’t matter – it’s the content that should
count. Second, attribution of motivations is usually inaccurate, and
sometimes totally mistaken. Third, people are often offended when their
motivations are challenged. Challenging motivations might make for good
theater or for effective rhetoric (see, for example, Fox News debates), but
it generally yields much more heat than light.
Therefore, rather than accuse people of hypocrisy, I think a more effective
strategy is to show where we agree with them, and then point out how, for
us, consistency of principle demands a plant-based diet. In other words, we
focus on our own choices and why we make them, rather than why other people
make their choices.
Next essay, I will continue to explore what constitutes respectful communication, and why this is needed to generate harmonious and just communities.
Go on to: Respectful Communication: Political Correctness
Return to:
Reflection on the Lectionary, Table of Contents