Hypocrisy And Just Condemnation

Hypocrisy is sometimes perceived as something that totally dissolves the moral credibility of a person.  Yes, it does indicate that a person is stupid, apathetic, or weak enough to live out a grave inconsistency, and perhaps the person is all three at once.  But does it render a hypocrite’s denouncement of the same evil they themselves commit entirely worthless?  Can it?

If a kidnapper condemns another kidnapper, does the condemnation have no moral weight simply because the condemner is also a kidnapper?  Of course not!  If kidnapping is morally wrong, then any condemnation of it has authority, regardless of the source of the objection.  This hypothetical person is being inconsistent, yes, but he or she is still not incorrect from a Christian standpoint.  There is an enormous difference between living in a manner inconsistent with a truth and denying a truth.

If a thief is robbed, any potential objection to the theft is not meaningless just because the victim is also a thief.  If theft itself is wrong, it is logically impossible for it to suddenly become just or undeserving of condemnation.  It can only be depraved irrespective of who the thief or victim is.  Thus, it follows by necessity that moral judgment of the theft is just, whether or not the one robbed is guilty of the same offense.

Being in the wrong does not mean that one is incorrect in passing moral judgment on others, even if that judgment also condemns oneself.  It means only that one is a hypocrite.  If someone is hypocritical, we should not deny any legitimate moral points they make, as if their hypocrisy changes the nature of right and wrong; instead, we should call attention to the fact that they do not live in accordance with their own moral judgments and with actual moral truths.  Since morality does not depend on the consistency or feelings of any human, the actions of another person should not affect our consistency in pursuing righteousness.