Your original counter-example is flawed, because by not keeping child slaves, I am doing as I think everyone else should - the action is negative, not positive.
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle. I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war. I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate. I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
I think people should form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for them to carry them out personally. I form opinions without regard to how much trouble it would be for me to carry them out personally. Doing otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
What I'm saying is that if an opinion is good enough to hold in mind, and recommend that others hold it in action, it had better be good enough for you yourself to hold it in action. If you're capable (physically or whatever) of holding the opinion in action, then by only holding it in mind, you're being hypocritical. "Do as I say, don't do as I do," etc.
If you can show me something that I think other people should do, and could but don't do myself in my current situation, I'll concede your point, but I don't think you'll find one.
For example:
I think people should recycle; I recycle.
I think people should not go to war; I do not go to war.
I think people should try to be considerate; I try to be considerate.
I think people should not keep child slaves; I do not keep child slaves.
And so on - this is consistent.
"I think other people should go to war, but I won't" is not consistent.
From:
no subject
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
The 'no downsides for me, personally' is a horrible disease that infects policymaking everywhere. 'I don't like hunting, so I think hunting should be banned. I don't hunt, therefore I'm being consistent!'
From:
no subject
That sounds fair; I try to do this. I'm not sure how well I succeed.
I think people should refrain from forcing others to act on their opinions if there are downsides to carring them out. I don't force people to act on their stated opinions regardless of other costs. Doing otherwise is hypocritical if I've formed my opinions explicitly to have no downsides for me, personally.
I don't want to force anyone to do anything; I do think people should have (that's should, not must, or anything; an ideal) the necessary conviction to back opinion with action. The "no downsides" notion is an odd one, but fair. I do a fair number of things I don't enjoy doing (paying taxes springs to mind right now, as I struggle through trying to get some money back) because my beliefs/opinions say I should. I've never tried to construct an opinion with no downsides for me; possibly something to look out for in myself.