Moral dualism simply implies that there are two moral opposites at work, independent of any interpretation of what might be "moral" and - unlike ditheism/bitheism - independent of how these may be represented-- Wikipedia source on 'Dualism'.
Hypocrisy is an unconscious self-contradiction: a state of incongruence between one's professed beliefs and feelings and one's actual beliefs and feelings, or an application of a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself.-- Wikipedia source on 'Hypocrisy'.
Hypocrisy is not simply a lie, saying something which one knows to be false. Neither is it simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches
Let's see how many of us can get these :-
- It is possible for two statements to be correct at one time
- It is possible for two mutually conflicting statements to be correct at the same time.
- It is possible for two mutually conflicting statements to be correct at the same time and yet be different and belying the sum effect of those two statements.
- That the first three statements hint towards a philosophical idea called Dualism , and the 'sum effect' of two conflicting but true statements often yields what is 'Hypocrisy'.
- Therefore, it is possible to have Dualism and not agreeing to Hypocrisy.
Think of this:-
- Do u agree that there is a thing called Right of Privacy, infact even talked and approved by Human Rights-- the UDHR, the Cairo Declaration(or the Islamic HR), and also the Bangkok (Asian) HR
- Do u agree that for the purpose of good governance , u require good ethics, good and transparent administration or the management?
- Do u agree that Corporates enjoy a right in regard to keeping their Trade Secrets?
- Do u think the Transparency in management is a violation of Right to Privacy at some point?
What do u think is the method to resolve this entangle?
I think we need to also discuss a few other trivia before we proceed to finding a solution.
Silence and Right to be Silent.
Disclosures and Duty of Disclosure
Ordinary Common Law works on a generally accepted terms of Caveat Emptor. Thus, it puts the primary responsibility on the buyer to look for defects in the goods/services one is purchasing. Thus it provides a Right of silence on the seller of the good/services.
Ask a shopkeeper, "Are your sweets fresh and okay?'
The shopkeeper has a right, therefore, to say, "Yes Sir", nomatter he made them some one week ago!
Because you have right to ask for a sample , and then smell and taste the sweet before you buy it.
But the law also enforce Duty of Disclosures at certain situations, for example, in the case of Insurance, the insured has a duty of disclosures towards the insurer.
The general condition is that if the buyer has now means of discovering the truth except without by a general disclosure by the seller than Right of Silence does not apply.
Question?!?! Who decides whether a case is hanging on the condition of 'Truth cannot be discovered except by a disclosure from the seller"??
Answer: I think it is here the the good ethics again come into play because, LOOK AT THE THAT IRONY, by a good ethic one decides whether the case required a essential General Disclosure or not, and in the second case of 'Not', one decides NOT TO disclose, thereby going UNethical via his Ethical route!! Because he is not being transparent!!!
Isn't it a funny situation?
Such situations happen many times when only the commercial gains between the buyer and seller are at stake, and as I understand, the statutes and the courts of law do not accept Non-disclosure events when issues of general public concern, such as life of person, environment pollution, etc are at stake.
Only our regular Karma help us develop the Dharma sense on the matter, basis which we decide.
Suggest me something, if anyone has anything.