Customer Reviews

In Defense of Hypocrisy: Picking Sides in the War on Virtue

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Though this book is billed as a defense, it's really much more than that: A study of why hypocrisy is so pervasive, why people are so offended by it, and whether that offense always makes sense. It's a remarkably thorough treatment of the topic, especially considering what a quick read it is. Lott isn't always right (he overestimates the role that aversion to hypocrisy has played in reactions to priest-molester scandals, for example), but he's always thought-provoking.

Jeremy Lott's defense of hypocrisy begins strong, with what is probably his strongest argument of the book: Moral weakness is not hypocrisy. He then makes his second argument, that not all hypocrisy is bad, becauase it doesn't always have bad results. In other words, hypocrisy should be judged by the results, rather than by the moral rightness or wrongness of hypocrisy itself.

This is a very weak defence, because it is so easy to show the extreme outcomes. While he decires the slippery slope, he leaves the book with the slippery slope solidly in place: all hypocrisy is relative, based on the outcome or results of the act itself. You can, of course, defend any moral wrong, up to and including murder, on this same ground.

You can see the result in his defense of Brittany Spears, and the Catholic Clergy in their sex scandles, all the while he is saying: "Those hypocritic preachers on TV...."

He also can't seem to figure out why we have an aversion to hypocrisy, or why we consider it wrong. The answer is really very simple, actually: read the Second Commandment. His reasoning on why hypocrisy are so prevalent are pretty good, while his defense of Rick Warren misses the entire point of what's wrong with Warren's teachings.

In the end, this is a pretty good defense of hypocrisy, from a distinctly non-Christian point of view (although the author claims to be a Christian, I see little in his reasoning to show this), but he misses the mark in a lot of ways, and gives a boost to relative morality as the ultimate answer.

This book reminds of reading a B.A. thesis on hypocrisy. It is quite entertaining and thoughtful, and started very interestingly. The beginning of the book was rife with good examples and anecdotes of why we need to re-think the definition and our attitude toward hypocrisy. The author tried to divide the discussion roughly according to hypocrisy in the various aspects of life: politics, religion and the entertainment industry. The writing loses steam about halfway through the book and I had to try really hard to continue reading.

The book tries not too be too academic and arcane, but also failed to reach a mainstream, layman style. It is a good effort and touches an interesting aspect of our everyday lives. The references in this book might be a worthier read. I wouldn't recommend this book unless you have a lot of time in your hands.

Lott sets out to overturn the conviction of hypocrisy and convinces at least this juror. Aiding his case is Jeremy's easy story-telling style. Considering how in-your-face the topic probably seems to some, the book's argument is gentle (but persuasive, I think). A good read.

This is one of the weakest "counterintuitive" books on the market. A confronting title does not make a good book.

Hypocrisy is so obviously hated because it exposes someone who wishes to take unfair advantage of another. In other words it is an inherently parasitic activity.

The author no doubt has other books in the wings: In Praise of Lying, Why Murder isn't always bad, Adultery - Think of the Positives, Is Deceit alway deceptive?, How stealing helps society by creating more robust security services.... you get the idea.