I like this.
But whatever the true definition of Hypocrisy, I think the relevant issue is much more:

"Falling short of a standard should be no bar to advocating a high standard, so long as one is open about his own shortcomings"

Why not?

Not requiring standards you cannot yourself meet is the only way in which we can ensure that people are not unduly burdened, penalised or oppressed by those who make the rules.

"Only impose those rules which you yourself can accept" should be a rule (and I will accept it).

The Churchman who cheats on his wife should not confess and repent, he should consider whether the rules he imposes are unrealistic. Perhaps he would not have cheated if he had been able to admit that his marriage had disintegrated and either fixed it or separated. Perhaps he should never have married the woman he did but his choices were restricted. He imposed the rules and if he cannot accept them he should stop trying to require them.

There is also a distinction to draw between "advocating" and rule-making. The dieter can advocate dieting and people will just think her feeble. But if there is a penalty to pay for not making the standard then admitting that it is difficult should not absolve her from this. She should not impose a punishment for failing to achieve a standard that she cannot meet because she has not shown that it is achievable.

This does not necessarily mean that double-standards cannot apply (the child's bed-time is different to the fathers) because the categories of application are different, and furthermore justifiable (adults do need less sleep than children). However, where you fall into the category, to have the authority to make the rule you should meet it.

"Do what I say and not what I do" is a recipe for unrealistic rule-making and oppression. If you require high standards then have those with highest standards making the rules. That way they will still meet them and everyone will respect the rules all the more for that.

(sorry, got carried away)

PS *click*
( Ugi , it's a game of give and cake, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 19:27, Reply)