The problem of this article is the idea and practice of hypocrisy is inevitable and there is no alternative to it. The solution perhaps since you cant altogether eliminate it would be to make aware the difference between the hypocritical "sell out" and the legitimate compromise and be able to choose educationally between the 2.
Given the nature of man as not inherently good and the dependency of the political relationship between allies (not enemies nor true friends), one would find that true honesty is unbeneficial and perhaps detrimental and force as inapplicable from a humble position. This is the situation of politics. It also applies in social terms, relation ships with those around you who are not necessarily your friends but you still have to deal with them. Honesty is not going to work if you want any kind of peace given that it would only produce conflict. So how to deal with these compulsory relationships?
Presented in the article- Hypocrisy- appear to be civil and so gain trust in political relationships and be so unless this is unbeneficial- really, to see beyond the constraints of morality in order to find the most effective way to deal with the situation. Morality in appearance does not have to constrain what it is done in practice- a successful prince is not blinded by a supposed necessity of morality nor does he blatantly go against morality. In manners, you express civility even when the other person does not deserve it because it is the easiest way to keep the peace.
My solution- stop being afraid of honesty because it produces conflict. The only way you will ever reach a true solution is by conflict- hypocrisy is just a way of dancing around the problem because you are too lazy to address it.
The problem in this article at first appears to be be a question of whether or not hypocrisy should be accepted as an aspect of politics. However, we discover that in fact hypocrisy is a necessary and important process in politics. Hypocrisy can be used as a tool in order to further ones goals and to preserve oneself amongst the hoard of others who are doing the same things. Hypocrisy is a useful tool, a safeguard, and important portion in the agenda of the "hypocrite." The problem seems to be something else, since we have already justified political hypocrisy. The problem now seems to be if hypocrisy is an acceptable practice in a social standpoint and even as a tool to reach a CS2. And as a matter of fact hypocrisy in some cases is acceptable and is even revered. Manners are really nothing more than social hypocrisy, and unless there are extremely rare cases, manners do not reflect our true morals, values, standards, whatever. As explained, in this way, social hypocrisy actually fills in for the shortcomings of the human race, and there are quite a few shortcomings. This is where hypocrisy can actually generate tolerance among others. Hypocrisy can also be used to an advantage in situations where to be hypocritical is to be better than to be honest. But great danger lies within the judgement of when to use hypocrisy, as it has a time and place, and much care must be taken to determine that. This is where that inevitable danger lies.
The article begins by immediately claiming that political hypocrisy must exist in politics because there is no alternative to it. The problem begins with the question of whether hypocrisy (political/social) should even be accepted at all since it is “cheating” or “lying” and whether it is right to pretend something for an individual’s gain but not to mean it since this is not considered appropriate manners. Society can also argue that by cheating, people will not get ahead if they lose the progress they “gain” only to have it taken away because people do not honor their promises. The antihypocrite can even argue that in a community standard, one ought to care/tolerate others and that this task cannot be completed if society is cheating everyone through hypocrisy. As the article develops, it becomes evident that hypocrisy is something that is necessary but then leads to the problem of how much exactly should hypocrisy be used.
From the beginning of the problem, the initial solution is that society should not be hypocritical because it will be cheating and society ought to be a democracy because it is “honest and rational”. The problem with this solution is that it only works if everyone is on a set relationship. This becomes impossible since everyone has enemies, true friends (which are rare), and then these “false friends” that become important merely because the individual needs something from them. In order to advance, these false friends become advantageous as they can form mutually useful agreements with the individual; and because these friends are “fake”, hypocrisy is used to gain what is needed because hypocrisy can secure cooperation when force or friendship cannot be used on. Although society may feel tricking people is unjustified, the article argues it is alright because by following the golden rule (do unto others as you can expect them to do unto you), all men are bad so the technique of hypocrisy is alright. Society can argue that by cheating people, this is not good manners but the article goes on to point out that manners consist of lies and are insincere in order to allow public relations between strangers. In order to get ahead and survive in society, one must be careful and not trust anyone. Deceit and force go hand in hand with deceit leading first, and with it, it can maintain the state. Although hypocrisy is needed to advance, its use must be controlled. For example, hypocrisy can be used as long as it maintains the state and in a certain situation is much more beneficial than honesty, but it cannot be for personal reasons and cannot be part of private relationships or chaos will ensue. Also, although hypocrisy can be used especially in politics, society cannot throw out principles and moral ideals because they are still needed in order to prevent hypocrisy from getting out of control. Even though principles and moral ideals are still needed, it is emphasized they cannot be absolutely adhere to because ti will result in political failure. This argument can also be applied to the antihypocrite. By caring about moral ridgity, the antihypocrite will not accept the inevitable moral failure and by pretending to care about others, he is more concerned with himself.
The problem is that people are constantly using others to get to the top and be successful. People use those who will benefit them the most to claw there way up, giving false assurance to those who are beneficial. For those individuals who are not beneficial to ones self interest, they are simple pushed over to clear the path.
It is possible that allowing a little injustice action and dependency through out the people is necessary to maintain a stable society.
problem: that which is right does not equal your self interest, therefore the majority of people do not do what ir wight.
solution: to change what one ought to do to is making it match your self interest by either changing your self interest or compromising with the community standard.
I think that the problem is that people don't know the difference between hypocrisy and manners which gets in the way of things.
The solution is to get others to understand the differences between hypocrisy and manners.
Problem: Is it ethically justifiable for one to be hypocritical(especially concerning others being deceitful with you) simply because if you are not deceitful, then you can expect others to be later on??
Solution: According to Machiavelli in the article, this is a completely justifiable action. His golden rule is even, "Do unto others as you can expect them to do unto you." Following this logic, it is ethically responsible to be deceitful with one who, being a human with human nature, will surely be deceitful with me. Machiavelli argues that, because all humans are, in their nature, immoral, there is no reason one should be ethically pure if no one else can/will be.
THe problem of the article is whether social and political hypocrisy are trully necessary how de we control or eliminate it. Well hypocrasy either socail or political will never be eliminated. But a soultion would be if we could actually differentiate between the hypocritical solution and what is actually going to be done whe could at least lower or stop the effects of hypocrisy. And this would only be necessary if hypocrisy was truly necessary. But hypocrisy will only exist since always following exactly what you promised may actually not turn out as good as you foresaw it. And making room for some hypocrisy make actually turn out better than keeping promises.
People are doing wrong in order to achieve the right, according to their self interest, by gaining people’s trust and eventually deceiving them. No one can be completely independent. (“It is dependence that breeds manipulation and hypocrisy.” (pg. 3, par. 1)) The prince or leader is living by his own community standard, moral relativism, because to him, everything he does is right. He sets the rest of the society under a deceiving, absolutist standard. Machiavelli suggests that if you deceive your people for the purpose of improving your society, it is right; if you deceive your people for the sake of destroying or damaging the society it is wrong. Even if you are deceiving your people for the good of the society, you are still lying to them and doing wrong against them, which only serve the leader’s self-interest. In the article, Machiavelli is promoting the idea of law and order through manners, thus once again promoting the people’s absolutist society.
The leader must combine his/her standard, moral relativism, with the people’s community standard, absolutism, and live under that one standard with the rest of the society. The people must find a way of being independent for themselves, yet be accepting to other’s opinions and self-interest. The leader must form a civil society, thus be able to be honest with his people when making decisions without having to be hypocritical.
The problem is that there is no politics without hypocrisy. Politics is not about doing the right thing, but pretending to do the right thing.. This is so because politics invovles negotiating what is better for certain people and this may imply having the people on the politician side.
A solution for this problem would invovle choosing certain forms of hypocrisy. As it is impossible to have politics without hypocrisy due to human nature, one should not choose between honesty and hypocrisy, but between different types of hypocrisy.
The problem of the article is governments are one-sided on issues and only support the side which helps them stay in power or provides them with money. A possible solution would be to check government officials to see if they are following the laws put in place on them.
Individuals are hypocrites and can always have hidden agendas or other means of lying to gain favor in their own name, the solution being use this for your own gain and do not put complete faith in others.
1. The problem suggested in the article is the argument of whether we need deceit and hypocrisy in politics and even everyday life.
2.Machiavelli suggest the use of political hypocrisy not as if and only if. The possible solution of the article is to use this hypocrisy because it can be beneficial and prevent harm, but it can only be used if it is the last or greatly better option.
The politicians of government continuously lie about many things in order to get them into office
Machiavelli states that a political leader, or a field of this nature, should rely solely on hypocrisy and distrust, if the intention is good.
Problem: The problem presented in this article is that hypocrisy, which is a form of dishonesty and therefore not ethically "right", is being used as a political and social strategy for people to get their way. This is occurring because being hypocritical is the best way to have people like you and to accomplish your self interest. In politics, leaders are preaching certain strategies and not fulfilling them and making promised they just break later on. This to to win over votes by satisfying the public and telling them what they want to hear. This is not ethical, as it is tricking them into placing a vote for a person who will do differently than what they say. But, for politicians, the only way to win is to tell people what they want to hear and to make campaign promises, etc. In social situations, manners are very hypocritical. Even if you dislike someone and wish to be mean to them, you put on a different face and act nice so that they join your side.
Solution: This issue is very complex and hard to solve. Perhaps what is needed is just for hypocrisy to no longer be worth doing. The problem with this is that it is a nearly impossible feat to achieve. A better way to solve this problem might be to promote kind honesty, in a respectful and considerate manner. While this my somewhat help to change hypocrisy, it is part of the game and is nearly impossible to remove entirely.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union