Is Bill Bennett a hypocrite?

[Skeptical Greg]

This is really an interesting thread..

Bill Bennett's "Book(ie) of Virtues" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18771)

What is interesting, is that it is spinning off arguments regarding the morality of gambling ( and even adultry ), with a seemingly blind evasion of Bennett's apparent hypocricy.


Based on your understanding of Bennett's behavior, and what you consider the definition of ' hypocrite ', to be;

Do you believe Bill Bennett is a hypocrite?

1. Yes

2. No

If your answer is ' No ', I would be interested in an example you might have, of what/who a ' real ' hypocrite is, and maybe and example of the the behaviour you consider to be hypocritical.
Please avoid things like " All Democrats ." But if that is the best you can do, we will consider it a testimony to the astuteness of the source..

I would suggest that the behaviour, that speaks of hypocricy does not have to be wrong (morally), for the behavior to be hypocritical.

It could be as mundane as touting the evil of broccoli, while secretly cultivating a patch of the stuff amidst your hemp plants.

[Crossbow]

I voted 'Yes' and my vote was the first one cast!

Please PM me so I can tell you where to UPS that giant bag of money.

:p

But in all seriousness, I would say that Bill Bennett is a hypocrite and that he has all but admitted to this himself when he promised that he would give up gambling.

Well, if gambling is a virtuous behavior, then why is he giving it up?

And if gambling is not a virtuous behavior, then why did he wait until the public exposure to give it up?

Either way, I do not think that it says much about the virtues that are held by Bill Bennett.

[RandFan]

Your poll did not adequately reflect how I felt so I had to vote no.

I think he is in a small way guilty of some hypocricy.

hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.

If a person says that gambling is wrong and that person gambles then that person is a hypocrite. Bill clearly did not do that.

If a person makes a living extoling virtue and urging others to avoid vice and then that preson gambles then that person is guilty, at least to some degree of hypocricy or at the very least an apperance of hypocricy.

Why? Simply because many do consider it a vice. Why does Bill get to decide what is and what isn't a vice? Sounds a bit convenient doesn't it? Yes but consider the following,

1. Bill Bennet never hid his gambling. On the contrary he has spoken about his love of gambling in the past and has even written about it.

2. Bill Bennet has never claimed that gambling was a vice.

3. The Catholic church does not consider gambling that is not detrimental to the family to be a vice.

4. Bills gambling was not detrimental to his family.

I think clearly that an argument can be made that Bill is guilty of some hypocricy and I agree that he is to some extent guilty of it. However he was not out doing specifically what he told others not to do.

You asked for an example of hypocricy.

In 2001 Barbara Streisand called upon all residents of California to save the state's precious energy supply by hanging their wash out on a clothesline.

Responding to criticism her spokesperson said that despite Streisand's plea to the people of California, she doesn't have to follow her own advice, claiming "She never meant that it necessarily applied to her.

Now that is hypocricy.

[Frostbite]

The guy bet millions of dollars... was that money his?

[Victor Danilchenko]

I would say that since he didsn't preach about the evils of gambling, he wasn't, strictly speaking, a hypocrite. He skirted the edge IMO.

[rikzilla]

Bennett himself donned the mantle of moral professor. He cannot now pretend that since he didn't name it out loud that gambling is not a vice! It is a vice...and he is a hypocrite.

-z

[Blue Monk]

It is kind of a tough call.

To call him a hypocrite then one would have to assume that gambling as immoral is a foregone conclusion and that clearly is not a universal opinion.

One would expect that one preaching about high morals would include gambling, and I'm sure there are many now noticing that it is conspicuosly absent from his rants, however, it is legal and he has never spoken out against it.

It will be hard for him, however, to avoid the appearance of being somewhat selective about exactly what is or is not immoral.

[NoZed Avenger]

I lean hypocrite, but think Randfan's explanation makes a lot of sense. Viscerally, it just feels too close to full blown hypocracy to excuse the action, even though I think that analysis is worthy of further thought.

So, I had been prepared to vote hypocrite and still lean that way, but the jury is now out until I ponder those points further.

NA

[shecky]

I say hypocrite. RandFan's points are well taken, but I think he's pulling a Clinton on us here. While Bennett never specifically mentiones gambling in his book, surely he knows gambling has never been considered a virtuous behavior by any means, and more often contrary to living a virtuous life.

Any public figure presumtuous to preach or moralize should expect to be held to such high standards. And expect to be outed if they seem to fall below those standards. I personally have no problem with his gambling habits, but this revelation does put his credibility on the line. Kinda like someone who preaches against the use of marijuana but abuses booze instead.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Blue Monk

It will be hard for him, however, to avoid the appearance of being somewhat selective about exactly what is or is not immoral.

Everyone is selective about exactly what is or is not immoral. He drinks, and has never spoken out against drinking, either. Unsurprisingly, his Catholic Church (from whence, one would assume, he takes his morals) does not select either gambling nor drinking as sins. Clearly, doing too much of either is considered immoral by the Catholic Church: "Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others." ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church

One can assume that his enjoyment of gambling led him to the belief that gambling is not immoral, or that his belief that gambling is not immoral (due to his Church) led him to believe that gambling was an acceptable way to enjoy his free time. I believe the latter, and only find a problem in that he gambled so much. Due to his decision to quit gambling altogether now, I assume he agrees.

I don't find him a hypocrite, however, since it seems he never spoke out against gambling.

MattJ

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
To call him a hypocrite then one would have to assume that gambling as immoral is a foregone conclusion

No, one wouldn't. That would only be necessary for accusing him of being a particular type of hypocrite. For some of us, his hypocrisy lies in being smugly, self-righteously outspoken in his support for the criminalization of certain types of consensual but potentially self-destructive behavior, to the point of being dismissive of anyone who disagrees, when it turns out that he has been engaging in such an activity himself. In short, he wanted to have his fun, but supports using the force of law to prohibit others from having theirs.


One would expect that one preaching about high morals would include gambling, and I'm sure there are many now noticing that it is conspicuosly absent from his rants, however, it is legal and he has never spoken out against it.

Well, duh. What the hell would you expect? He was gambling! Would you expect him to deliberately include as a target in his morality crusade something he knew he could be caught at? Connect the damn dots, and stop defending this blowhard.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Everyone is selective about exactly what is or is not immoral.

Which is precisely why anyone casting himself in the role of expert on the subject is setting himself up for ridicule, and deservedly so.

I don't find him a hypocrite, however, since it seems he never spoke out against gambling.

:rolleyes: This lame argument again? Please see my response to Blue Monk on this point.

[Clancie]

I agree that RandFan puts the best face on it. However, to me Bennett's biggest problem isn't that he likes to gamble, it's that he's compulsive, addicted to it, and can't see or admit it.

He spent 8 MILLION dollars and still refuses to admit he has a problem.

However, I have no doubt that, if Clinton had lost millions gambling, Bennett would see the same behavior--plus the added denial--as serious character flaws--and he wouldn't hesitate to say it, either.

He's made his career on being judgmental, and on passing moral judgments on the behavior of others, as if he considers himself some kind of professional moral authority.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by WMT1
:rolleyes: This lame argument again? Please see my response to Blue Monk on this point.

hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.

I find your response to Blue Monk less than convincing, since you profess that the problem lies in the falseness of a distinction Bennett's church has made. "Gambling is ok, (some) Drug use is not" Whereas you claim that all such behaviors that can be characterized as "consensual but potentially self-destructive behavior" are similar enough that no distinction can be drawn between them.

If you are correct and there is no distinction, the best you can claim is that Bennett is wrong, not that he is a hypocrite. This falls from the definition of hypocrisy.

MattJ

[WMT1]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
hy·poc·ri·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pkr-s)
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies
The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.An act or instance of such falseness.

By that definition, you'd be hard pressed to identify anyone who was ever publicly called a "hypocrite" who was actually guilty of hypocrisy. In actual use, the word has come to almost always mean something along the lines of "inconsistency between how one judges others and one's own behavior", so I'm satisfied that, the way the word is generally used, he qualifies with flying colors. And if I looked hard enough, I'm betting I could find a dictionary that would support this definition. But if that's not good enough for you, I found one rather quickly for which he qualifies anyway:

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I think that last part pretty much covers the necessary bases.


I find your response to Blue Monk less than convincing, since you profess that the problem lies in the falseness of a distinction Bennett's church has made. "Gambling is ok, (some) Drug use is not"

I said nothing about his "church", so I'm not sure where you're getting that part. In any case, it has more to do with the insufficiency of any distinction between those activities to justify engaging in one of them to excess while supporting jail for those who choose the other.


Whereas you claim that all such behaviors that can be characterized as "consensual but potentially self-destructive behavior" are similar enough that no distinction can be drawn between them.

I made no such claim. If you're going to refer to what I've said, please get it right. Again, for the record, I will now say there is insufficient distinction to keep what I described in the previous point from qualifying as hypocrisy.


If you are correct and there is no distinction,

Yet again, that's not what I said. But even if it was ...


the best you can claim is that Bennett is wrong, not that he is a hypocrite.

Nope. Until the rest of society starts adhering to your narrow definition of the word, I'll stand by it in this case.


This falls from the definition of hypocrisy.

Only from the rather selective definition you provided. And incidentally, just to help you get there, I'd be interested in your answers to the questions posed by Crossbow in the second post of this thread.

[Baker]

For the next Poll is Diogenes obsessed with Bill Bennett?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by WMT1

Only from the rather selective definition you provided. And incidentally, just to help you get there, I'd be interested in your answers to the questions posed by Crossbow in the second post of this thread. I'm trying to be the detatched observer here, but I liked Crossbow's comment also..But in all seriousness, I would say that Bill Bennett is a hypocrite and that he has all but admitted to this himself when he promised that he would give up gambling. I'm trying to imagine a thought process, that involved millions of dollars over a period of years, that went something like:

" Gee, I just can't imagine that most of the readership of " The Book of Virtues ", would have a problem, with me hanging out in casinos and dumping ~$8 mil into slot and video poker machines."

Heck, if he'd at least sat down in a real poker game, drank some beers, smoked some cigars and lost a few million clams, I could find a little respect for the guy.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Baker
For the next Poll is Diogenes obsessed with Bill Bennett?

I am concerned philosophically with the rationalization of his behavior by some.
If 'obsessed' rolls off your tongue better, feel free to rinse twice before spitting..:D

Watch for the new poll in ' Banter "..

[Baker]

Originally posted by Diogenes


I am concerned philosophically with the rationalization of his behavior by some.
If 'obsessed' rolls off your tongue better, feel free to rinse twice before spitting..:D

Watch for the new poll in ' Banter "..

Well I’m not questioning your right to post on the subject it just seemed amusing.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by WMT1
By that definition, you'd be hard pressed to identify anyone who was ever publicly called a "hypocrite" who was actually guilty of hypocrisy.

It was Randfan's definition, and he found an example. I agree that one is hard-pressed to find such examples, but only because I believe that most people who are publicly called hypocrites are not in fact hypocrites.

Originally posted by WMT1
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

I think that last part pretty much covers the necessary bases.

Let's see:

He was not feigning to be (a non-gambler) what he was not.

He was not feiging to believe (gambling is wrong) what he does not believe.

He was not falsely assuming appearance of virtue (by either your definition or his, since you both believe that gambling is not immoral, and he wasn't pretending not to be a gambler in any case)

He was not falsely assuming an appearance of religion, since his religion does not consider gambling to be wrong.


Bennett's hypocrisy hinges on what he believes, not what you believe. If he believes there is a distinction between gambling and other things that some people consider vices, you can argue that he's wrong but not that he's a hypocrite. (For whatever it's worth, I agree with you that gambling is no worse than many other things that Bennett is against. I believe that this makes him wrong, not a hypocrite.)

Originally posted by WMT1
I said nothing about his "church", so I'm not sure where you're getting that part. In any case, it has more to do with the insufficiency of any distinction between those activities to justify engaging in one of them to excess while supporting jail for those who choose the other.

I made no such claim. If you're going to refer to what I've said, please get it right. Again, for the record, I will now say there is insufficient distinction to keep what I described in the previous point from qualifying as hypocrisy.

Right. You referred to a distinction he makes, which is the distinction his church makes, as hypocritical. Your objection hinges on whether the distinction is valid or not. You say it isn't, and that makes him (and every member of the Catholic Church who sticks to its teachings) hypocrites. I understand your position much better now.

Originally posted by WMT1
Only from the rather selective definition you provided. And incidentally, just to help you get there, I'd be interested in your answers to the questions posed by Crossbow in the second post of this thread.

sure.

Well, if gambling is a virtuous behavior, then why is he giving it up?

I doubt he would argue that it's virtuous, rather he would say that it's morally neutral, which is how his church describes it. Obviously he's giving it up because lots of people disagree, and it's costing him politically. Politicians do this all the time, refraining from behaviors that the public does not approve of, irrespective of they beliefs about thos behaviors.

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Diogenes
" Gee, I just can't imagine that most of the readership of " The Book of Virtues ", would have a problem, with me hanging out in casinos and dumping ~$8 mil into slot and video poker machines." My first thought, good point. My second, Christ why can't I suffer from such moral dilemmas.

[Suddenly]

My big problem with Bennett and his gambling is that he first claimed to have "just about broke even." Given his choice of games and amount of play this is pretty much impossible.

Why did he lie about results? Did he think he was better if he won? Doesn't this lie signal a lot of deeper problems? If he has no problem and this was acceptable behaviour why quit? Why put on casino documents that he was to be contacted at work and not at home?

Bottom line is that his first public reaction to the gambling allegation was either an outright lie or the product of delusion. Considering we are talking about millions of dollars I can't tell which is worse.

As an avid poker player, I have no problem with gambling per se, although I can't understand why people gamble in situations with negative expected value. "I just about break even" is gamblespeak for "I lose my a** and its none of your buisiness, thank you." It bugs me that Bennett will throw a drug addict in jail when he is so hoplessly addicted to gambling he either a) deludes himself about multi-million dollar losses or b) lies about results. The he quits cold turkey. I'll give 3 - 1 he's on an internet casino by July.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by RandFan
My first thought, good point. My second, Christ why can't I suffer from such moral dilemmas.

On this we certainly agree.. Everytime I hear a story about someone pissing away a million bucks, I think " man, if I had that money, I could really do some good with it.." Even if I manged to squander it, at least I could clear up any doubt.. I could even live with being labeled a hypocrite..:D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

........ Politicians do this all the time, refraining from behaviors that the public does not approve of, irrespective of they beliefs about thos behaviors.

MattJ Whoa!!!

....Maybe when they get caught.. That's called being a..... ( starts with an 'h')........ come on, you say it ?

( P.S. This type of behavior is definitely not restricted to politicians.)

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Whoa!!!

....Maybe when they get caught.. That's called being a..... ( starts with an 'h')........ come on, you say it ?

( P.S. This type of behavior is definitely not restricted to politicians.)

No, I don't think so.

If I say "gambling is wrong" and then gamble, then I'm a hypocrite.

If I believe gambling is fine, but dont' engage in it because the public would never vote for me (or support my political group) then I'm not a hypocrite.

If I believe gambling is fine, and even engaged in it in the past, and even told people that I did so, but quit engaging in it because it starts costing me politically, I'm again not a hypocrite.

What is hypocritical about a public figure (who relies on the good will of the public) trying to please the public? It's a simple cost-benefit calculation, isn't it?

Must all people who engage in sodomy become pro-sodomy activists and go public with their sex lives, or are they allowed to remain relatively silent (and when speaking out, they say that they engage in sodomy and generally believe it's fine to do) on the subject without becoming hypocrites?

MattJ

[Clancie]

aerocontrols,
Try this one. If you lie ("I just about broke even"; "I have no problem with it"), and yet you criticize others for lying because lying is wrong, you're a hypocrite.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Clancy
aerocontrols,
Try this one. If you lie ("I just about broke even"; "I have no problem with it"), and yet you criticize others for lying because lying is wrong, you're a hypocrite.

Good enough for me.

[crackmonkey]

As several people have correctly observed, hypocrisy necessitates acting in a way contrary to one's stated convictions. He never considered gambling to be a vice, and never made a secret of his gambling. He therefore was not a hypocrite for gambling, by definition - he never said it was wrong.
An example of a hypocrite would be an anti-gun crusader caught with a concealed weapon.
Bennett is an example of someone the left strenuously objects to, and liberals finally have something to try to beat him about the head and shoulders with. It doesn't matter that this wasn't an example of hypocrisy - repeat it enough with vigor and some wil actually begin to believe it.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
It was Randfan's definition, and he found an example.

If you're talking about the Streisand example, I would certainly agree that it's hypocrisy, but I'm not so sure that would be a slam dunk if limited to the definition Randfan provided. (It would be interesting to see exactly what Babs actually said.) If you guys are going to be rigorous about definitions, then at least be rigorous about the ones you use too.


I agree that one is hard-pressed to find such examples, but only because I believe that most people who are publicly called hypocrites are not in fact hypocrites.

If limited to the definition Randfan provided, I'd agree.


He was not falsely assuming appearance of virtue (by either your definition or his, since you both believe that gambling is not immoral, and he wasn't pretending not to be a gambler in any case)

Sorry, but that part does not turn on whose sense of "virtue" you're talking about, so it doesn't have to be limited to his or mine. When you're talking about appearances, the assessment of anyone the appearance is meant for is relevant as well. And there are enough people who do find gambling morally objectionable to put the issue at play when someone makes a living from smugly and self righteously talking about "virtues", and enough so to warrant either refraining from such a potentially morally objectionable activity himself, or acknowledging it publicly from the beginning, and defending his participation. Failure to do this comes close enough, in my book, to qualify as falsely assuming an appearance of virtue.


Bennett's hypocrisy hinges on what he believes, not what you believe.

Not with the definition I'm using.


Right. You referred to a distinction he makes, which is the distinction his church makes, as hypocritical. Your objection hinges on whether the distinction is valid or not. You say it isn't, and that makes him (and every member of the Catholic Church who sticks to its teachings) hypocrites. I understand your position much better now.

Those are some pretty serious leaps you're making to attribute views to me that I never expressed. (Wasn't there a similar problem in your last response too?)

I made no mention of the Catholic Church at all. I've certainly given you enough to work with for you to know that an accurate characterization of who I'm talking about would be anyone who engages in some form of consensual but potentially self-destructive behavior, while supporting the jailing of people who engage in other forms of it, regardless of their religious affiliation. Somehow I doubt that even comes close to applying to "every member of the Catholic Church who sticks to its teachings".


Originally posted by Crossbow
Well, if gambling is a virtuous behavior, then why is he giving it up?

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Obviously he's giving it up because lots of people disagree, and it's costing him politically.

Nope, not so obvious. In the absence of any specific statement to the contrary, it could just as easily be inferred that, by giving it up, he's agreeing that it's immoral. And if that's not really what he believes, isn't the failure to clear up that impression getting dangerously close to professing beliefs that he does not hold or possess? Come to think of it, isn't the whole point of someone doing something for political reasons often to create an impression that isn't necessarily consistent with what they actually believe?


Politicians do this all the time, refraining from behaviors that the public does not approve of, irrespective of they beliefs about thos behaviors.

That politicians do something all the time hardly disqualifies it as hypocrisy. Hell, they practically wrote the instruction manual. Is there anyone better at "professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess" or "falseness"?

[Kodiak]

Technically, no...but, yeah, sorta...