0:00:15.595,0:00:17.898
Phony philanthropist,

0:00:17.898,0:00:20.138
humanitarian hypocrite,

0:00:20.478,0:00:22.432
deceptive do-gooder,

0:00:22.802,0:00:24.917
fraudulent altruist,

0:00:24.937,0:00:27.440
charitable pretender -

0:00:28.210,0:00:31.489
however you describe them,[br]one thing's for sure:

0:00:31.489,0:00:34.852
There are few things in life[br]that we hate more

0:00:34.852,0:00:37.787
than moralizing hypocrites,

0:00:37.787,0:00:42.965
people who ask us to do charitable acts[br]but are themselves hypocritical.

0:00:42.965,0:00:44.723
Now, in my line of work,

0:00:44.723,0:00:45.856
working with charities,

0:00:45.856,0:00:47.688
social enterprises,

0:00:47.688,0:00:49.847
foundations, and aid agencies,

0:00:49.867,0:00:53.667
I hear the word "hypocrite" all the time.

0:00:54.137,0:00:55.701
When Bono,

0:00:55.701,0:01:01.250
the sunglass-wearing, tax-avoiding,[br]mansion-living, jet-setting Irishman,

0:01:01.700,0:01:04.383
when he asks people to donate to charity,

0:01:04.383,0:01:05.393
what do we say?

0:01:05.393,0:01:07.100
We say, "Hypocrite!"

0:01:07.480,0:01:10.180
When Al Gore campaigns on climate change,

0:01:10.180,0:01:13.768
a man who many years

0:01:13.768,0:01:17.375
has had a utility bill[br]more than 20 times the average household,

0:01:17.395,0:01:19.475
we say, "Hypocrite!"

0:01:20.015,0:01:22.845
When the CEO of the Kony campaign

0:01:22.845,0:01:24.993
was, on one hand,[br]asking us to donate money

0:01:24.993,0:01:26.565
and saying he cared

0:01:26.565,0:01:31.245
but, on the other hand, was taking home[br]a charity salary of $90,000,

0:01:31.245,0:01:34.361
we said - you guessed it - "Hypocrite!"

0:01:34.673,0:01:36.467
You see, we hate hypocrites.

0:01:36.467,0:01:39.182
We hate people who purport[br]to have certain beliefs

0:01:39.182,0:01:41.109
that we don't actually think they have

0:01:41.109,0:01:43.641
when their actions[br]don't reflect those beliefs.

0:01:45.031,0:01:49.845
And I want to ask us,[br]"Should we call out people for hypocrisy?

0:01:49.845,0:01:53.980
People who we think are hypocrites,[br]should we give them that label?"

0:01:54.880,0:01:59.364
Now, I hate genuine hypocrisy[br]as much as the next person,

0:01:59.364,0:02:01.959
but I want to suggest -[br]and this is a big "but" -

0:02:01.959,0:02:05.425
I want to suggest[br]that calling out people for hypocrisy

0:02:05.425,0:02:07.525
is misguided at best,

0:02:07.525,0:02:10.552
downright dangerous at worst.

0:02:11.692,0:02:13.741
The key problem here

0:02:13.741,0:02:16.973
is that often when we accuse[br]people of hypocrisy,

0:02:16.973,0:02:18.949
it's not actually hypocrisy.

0:02:19.679,0:02:24.018
And there's a few common mistakes[br]that we make time and time again.

0:02:24.548,0:02:26.321
The first mistake that we make

0:02:26.321,0:02:29.824
is that we assume that[br]all charitable acts are equivalent.

0:02:30.564,0:02:34.690
Say someone tells you[br]that they support a carbon trading scheme.

0:02:34.700,0:02:39.245
We interpret that as just that person[br]supports the environment,

0:02:39.245,0:02:42.329
and so if they don't recycle,[br]we say, "Hypocrite!"

0:02:42.679,0:02:47.996
If someone asks you for money[br]for water purification tablets

0:02:48.016,0:02:49.992
for a country like Myanmar,

0:02:50.012,0:02:53.847
we assume, oh, that person[br]supports fresh clean water,

0:02:53.847,0:02:57.346
and so if they don't themselves[br]give money to build water wells,

0:02:57.346,0:02:59.203
we say, "Hypocrite!"

0:02:59.543,0:03:00.544
But the reality

0:03:00.544,0:03:03.944
is that there are multiple different ways[br]of solving every problem,

0:03:03.944,0:03:06.144
some that are far more[br]effective than others,

0:03:06.144,0:03:09.394
and just because you support[br]some approaches to problems

0:03:09.394,0:03:14.439
doesn't mean you can or should or will[br]support every approach.

0:03:14.439,0:03:16.645
That's the first mistake we commonly make.

0:03:17.045,0:03:19.698
The second problem[br]that we often come across,

0:03:19.698,0:03:21.360
the second mistake that we make

0:03:21.360,0:03:27.096
is that we compare to the extremes[br]of selflessness and selfishness.

0:03:27.556,0:03:29.680
Say you walk into a cafe,

0:03:29.680,0:03:34.897
and there's a sign on the wall that says,[br]"We donate 20% of our profits to charity."

0:03:34.897,0:03:38.270
You'd probably think,[br]"What a great café! What good people!

0:03:38.270,0:03:40.482
Donating a bit[br]of their profits to charity."

0:03:41.032,0:03:45.072
And so when we have mostly profit-making,

0:03:45.072,0:03:47.805
mostly selfishness but a bit of altruism,

0:03:47.805,0:03:50.029
we like it, we think of it[br]as a good thing.

0:03:50.733,0:03:53.023
But then if someone works for a charity,

0:03:53.023,0:03:56.404
if someone dedicates[br]their entire career to a good cause,

0:03:56.404,0:03:59.254
if someone is mostly selfless

0:03:59.254,0:04:02.036
but then takes home[br]a reasonably decent salary,

0:04:02.036,0:04:04.306
we say, "Hah, hypocrite!"

0:04:04.666,0:04:08.868
So we're fine with mostly selfish[br]with a touch of altruism

0:04:08.868,0:04:12.677
but not mostly altruistic[br]with a touch of selfish.

0:04:12.937,0:04:14.653
You can be 10% altruistic,

0:04:14.653,0:04:16.483
but you can't be 90%,

0:04:16.483,0:04:18.823
which doesn't make any sense.

0:04:18.823,0:04:23.567
We prefer honest greed[br]to imperfect generosity.

0:04:23.567,0:04:25.564
We compare to the extremes

0:04:25.564,0:04:28.697
rather than comparing people[br]to other people.

0:04:28.907,0:04:30.499
That's the second mistake.

0:04:30.739,0:04:32.511
The third mistake we make

0:04:32.511,0:04:33.525
is that we assume

0:04:33.525,0:04:37.912
that because someone supports[br]a collective response to something,

0:04:37.912,0:04:39.934
individual action must follow.

0:04:39.934,0:04:41.363
And so if a politician says

0:04:41.363,0:04:44.371
that they support[br]government-provided education,

0:04:44.371,0:04:47.047
but they send their kids[br]to private independent schools,

0:04:47.047,0:04:49.199
we say, "Hypocrite."

0:04:49.199,0:04:53.479
If someone was to say they supported[br]a global ban on meat consumption,

0:04:53.479,0:04:55.993
and yet they themselves ate meat,

0:04:55.993,0:04:58.341
we might say, "Hypocrite."

0:04:58.711,0:05:02.125
But the reality is it's totally rational

0:05:02.715,0:05:06.465
often to support a collective response

0:05:06.835,0:05:10.287
without necessarily wanting[br]to be the one to act alone,

0:05:10.287,0:05:12.551
to act individually, to bear the cost.

0:05:12.551,0:05:14.355
It's very rational.

0:05:14.355,0:05:17.326
For example, if you act in a certain way,

0:05:17.326,0:05:19.739
such as by taking really short showers

0:05:19.739,0:05:23.573
or taking the train instead of a plane[br]to save on carbon emissions,

0:05:23.573,0:05:26.800
you bear the full cost of your action,

0:05:26.800,0:05:30.172
and yet the benefits[br]are dispersed by seven billion people.

0:05:30.466,0:05:33.767
And so in order for it to be rational[br]for you to do that,

0:05:33.767,0:05:37.749
the benefits really need[br]to be seven billion times the cost,

0:05:37.749,0:05:39.603
which is rarely going to be the case.

0:05:39.603,0:05:44.348
That's why initiatives such as Earth Hour[br]often don't have a sustained impact.

0:05:44.688,0:05:47.703
It's not hypocritical to be rational.

0:05:48.803,0:05:50.853
The fourth mistake that we often make

0:05:50.853,0:05:53.228
is that we assume[br]that if someone really cares,

0:05:53.228,0:05:55.715
if someone really wants the best outcome,

0:05:55.715,0:05:59.043
they'll necessarily support[br]the ideal policy.

0:05:59.513,0:06:02.270
So when Kevin Rudd,[br]the former Prime Minister of Australia,

0:06:02.270,0:06:06.179
said climate change is the greatest[br]moral challenge of our time,

0:06:06.189,0:06:10.258
and then he supported[br]watered-down environmental legislation,

0:06:10.258,0:06:11.958
we said, "Hypocrite."

0:06:12.548,0:06:15.720
But the reality is sometimes[br]you need to be strategic.

0:06:16.120,0:06:19.410
And if that ideal policy,[br]if the ideal situation

0:06:19.410,0:06:21.919
would not receive parliamentary support,

0:06:21.919,0:06:26.594
if that would be scrapped[br]by the next Parliament in a year or two,

0:06:26.594,0:06:29.670
then sometimes opting[br]for the second-best approach

0:06:29.670,0:06:32.047
is actually more sustainable[br]and actually better

0:06:32.057,0:06:34.132
and actually has a greater impact.

0:06:34.452,0:06:39.138
Another common mistake we make[br]is that we conflate legality and morality.

0:06:39.488,0:06:43.518
If someone was to stand up[br]and say they opposed prostitution,

0:06:43.518,0:06:46.053
they thought prostitution was wrong,

0:06:46.053,0:06:48.560
and yet then they voted[br]for it to be legal,

0:06:48.560,0:06:50.582
we might say, "Hypocrite."

0:06:50.582,0:06:53.954
But questions of legality and morality[br]are very different.

0:06:55.024,0:06:58.963
You see, if making prostitution legal

0:06:58.963,0:07:01.846
meant that victims of abuse[br]could come forward

0:07:01.846,0:07:05.282
without fear of persecution[br]or prosecution,

0:07:05.282,0:07:07.378
then it might be the right thing to do,

0:07:07.378,0:07:11.561
irrespective of whether you thought[br]it was morally right or wrong.

0:07:11.561,0:07:15.343
Likewise, it's entirely consistent[br]for someone to say

0:07:15.343,0:07:19.100
that they themselves,[br]say for religious reasons,

0:07:19.360,0:07:21.758
don't believe in gay marriage,

0:07:21.758,0:07:25.107
but for that same person to say[br]they think it should be legal.

0:07:25.477,0:07:28.090
Because questions of legality[br]also take into account

0:07:28.090,0:07:32.804
other people's beliefs and opinions[br]and sexual preferences.

0:07:33.184,0:07:35.827
We shouldn't conflate[br]legality and morality.

0:07:36.587,0:07:38.497
And the final mistake that we often make

0:07:38.497,0:07:41.926
is we just don't distinguish[br]between different circumstances.

0:07:41.926,0:07:44.174
When Obama came out and said

0:07:44.174,0:07:49.525
that having armed security in every school[br]wasn't the answer to gun violence,

0:07:49.525,0:07:52.676
the NRA responded,[br]not by attacking the argument,

0:07:52.676,0:07:54.353
but by attacking the person.

0:07:54.353,0:07:57.523
They ran ad campaigns,[br]saying that Obama was a hypocrite

0:07:57.523,0:08:00.483
because he had armed security[br]for his daughters.

0:08:00.903,0:08:04.716
We often don't distinguish[br]different circumstances.

0:08:04.736,0:08:07.762
My point here is that often[br]when we accuse people of hypocrisy,

0:08:07.782,0:08:10.203
it's simply not hypocritical.

0:08:10.203,0:08:12.235
We assume that we know people's beliefs,

0:08:12.235,0:08:15.822
we assume we know why people[br]are acting in a certain way,

0:08:15.822,0:08:18.434
but it's often arrogant to assume that.

0:08:18.434,0:08:21.863
We're too quick to condemn,[br]too slow to ask why.

0:08:22.503,0:08:25.498
But let's assume for a moment[br]that it was hypocritical,

0:08:25.508,0:08:29.664
that these people did actually act[br]in a hypocritical manner.

0:08:30.194,0:08:34.647
The problem here is that[br]the existence of hypocrisy

0:08:34.647,0:08:38.645
doesn't actually undermine[br]the argument that is being made.

0:08:38.645,0:08:41.924
It's a convenient distraction,[br]but it's not a rebuttal.

0:08:41.924,0:08:44.640
I mean the argument that smoking is bad

0:08:45.030,0:08:49.429
doesn't change because the person[br]who is making it is a smoker.

0:08:49.729,0:08:54.275
You can know right or wrong[br]without being morally perfect yourself.

0:08:54.275,0:08:57.574
And you should be able to ask people[br]to do what is right.

0:08:57.574,0:09:00.606
That shouldn't just be[br]the purview of the morally perfect.

0:09:02.056,0:09:05.772
And so, if we shouldn't[br]call out people for hypocrisy,

0:09:05.772,0:09:09.903
if we shouldn't focus[br]on the charitable messenger,

0:09:09.903,0:09:11.447
what should we do?

0:09:11.747,0:09:12.753
I want to say

0:09:12.753,0:09:17.132
that we should discuss and debate[br]and critique the charitable message.

0:09:17.702,0:09:19.778
Now, with me I have two jugs.

0:09:20.128,0:09:21.875
One of those represents the person,

0:09:21.875,0:09:25.264
one of those represents[br]the messenger in question,

0:09:25.264,0:09:28.141
and the other one represents[br]the argument, the message.

0:09:28.141,0:09:30.866
Now, when we call out people[br]for hypocrisy,

0:09:30.866,0:09:33.681
when we use that hypocrisy argument,

0:09:33.691,0:09:36.169
when we use it to attack a person,

0:09:36.179,0:09:37.970
this is what happens.

0:09:39.130,0:09:40.727
It's easy to make them bleed.

0:09:40.727,0:09:42.646
It's easy to inflict pain.

0:09:43.136,0:09:45.632
After all, they're a fallible person.

0:09:47.042,0:09:48.175
But what's interesting

0:09:48.175,0:09:50.298
is that we don't discuss,[br]we don't critique,

0:09:50.298,0:09:53.252
we don't criticize the charitable message.

0:09:55.862,0:09:57.246
And so that's the status quo,

0:09:57.246,0:09:59.552
that's the situation we find ourselves in,

0:09:59.552,0:10:03.371
where attacking the charitable[br]messenger is all too easy

0:10:03.391,0:10:07.240
and attacking the charitable[br]message is often taboo.

0:10:08.480,0:10:09.623
Why is this?

0:10:09.623,0:10:13.852
Well, I think we often think of charity[br]as somewhat of a taboo subject.

0:10:13.872,0:10:15.734
We don't like criticizing it.

0:10:15.744,0:10:18.904
Indeed, we just think of it as doing good.

0:10:18.914,0:10:21.810
That's why you can do a lot of things[br]in the name of charity.

0:10:21.810,0:10:23.616
(Laughter)

0:10:24.396,0:10:27.565
If you want an excuse[br]to do a naked calendar,

0:10:27.565,0:10:29.420
do it in the name of charity.

0:10:29.750,0:10:32.988
If you want an excuse to do a marathon,[br]do it in the name of charity.

0:10:32.988,0:10:35.418
If you want an excuse[br]to make three of your friends,

0:10:35.418,0:10:36.846
to force three of your friends

0:10:36.846,0:10:39.278
to pour a bucket of ice cold water[br]over their heads,

0:10:39.278,0:10:40.275
(Laughter)

0:10:40.275,0:10:42.135
do it in the name of charity.

0:10:42.135,0:10:45.779
You see, we find it difficult[br]to criticize acts of charity.

0:10:45.779,0:10:48.091
We think of charity as one and the same,

0:10:48.111,0:10:50.834
but not all charities are created equal,

0:10:50.844,0:10:54.817
not all approaches to problems[br]are equally effective.

0:10:55.437,0:10:57.583
One of the things[br]that the organization I run,

0:10:57.583,0:10:58.742
180 Degrees Consulting,

0:10:58.742,0:11:00.114
specializes in

0:11:00.114,0:11:01.585
is measuring the social impact

0:11:01.585,0:11:04.851
of different programs[br]and different organizations,

0:11:04.851,0:11:06.206
and it's very clear to me

0:11:06.206,0:11:08.522
that some approaches, some charities,

0:11:08.522,0:11:13.368
are hundreds, even thousands, of times[br]more effective than other approaches.

0:11:13.368,0:11:14.572
And so what that means

0:11:14.572,0:11:17.857
is that it's more important[br]to do the right act,

0:11:17.857,0:11:19.341
the most effective act,

0:11:19.341,0:11:22.006
than to merely do an action.

0:11:22.591,0:11:24.737
An action is merely a means to an end.

0:11:24.747,0:11:27.794
We focus on it when we accuse[br]people of hypocrisy,

0:11:27.794,0:11:31.656
but focusing on the impact[br]is far more important.

0:11:32.436,0:11:34.011
It's far more important

0:11:34.011,0:11:37.322
because in a world with unlimited problems

0:11:37.332,0:11:40.625
but limited time, limited resources,[br]and limited money,

0:11:40.635,0:11:45.975
we can't afford to not have[br]the greatest social impact possible.

0:11:45.975,0:11:47.474
We can't afford it.

0:11:47.474,0:11:52.642
We can't afford for doing good[br]to merely be a feel-good endeavor.

0:11:52.662,0:11:55.948
It must be an intellectual[br]endeavor as well.

0:11:56.308,0:11:58.215
Let me give you one example.

0:11:58.645,0:12:01.134
Say you have $42,000,

0:12:01.154,0:12:04.367
and you want to spend that money[br]helping blind people.

0:12:04.387,0:12:06.779
You can spend that money[br]in a few different ways.

0:12:07.099,0:12:10.125
One way is by not giving it at all.

0:12:10.135,0:12:14.440
The second way is by using the money[br]to train a guide dog.

0:12:14.450,0:12:17.326
It cost about $42,000[br]to train a guide dog.

0:12:17.336,0:12:18.640
And the third option

0:12:18.650,0:12:21.749
is that you can use it[br]to fund a low-cost eye surgery

0:12:21.759,0:12:22.812
in a place like India,

0:12:22.832,0:12:26.308
which costs about $75 per surgery.

0:12:26.328,0:12:28.985
And so with that $42,000,

0:12:28.995,0:12:31.429
you can either help no blind people,

0:12:31.699,0:12:33.306
one blind person,

0:12:33.316,0:12:35.902
or 560 blind people.

0:12:36.322,0:12:39.030
I do not think it should be taboo

0:12:39.290,0:12:44.233
to argue that you should not give money[br]to training the guide dog,

0:12:44.253,0:12:45.771
as cute as guide dogs are

0:12:45.791,0:12:49.222
and as important guide dogs are[br]for the people who use them,

0:12:49.422,0:12:53.834
and that you should instead[br]give money for the low-cost eye surgery.

0:12:54.584,0:12:56.684
I know that sounds bad.

0:12:56.944,0:12:58.875
It sounds unethical.

0:12:59.455,0:13:01.313
It almost sounds evil.

0:13:01.753,0:13:05.634
Once we've done the effective approaches,[br]we can do the less effective approaches,

0:13:05.654,0:13:07.877
but I don't think[br]less effective approaches

0:13:07.877,0:13:11.621
should come at the expense[br]of the more effective approaches.

0:13:12.371,0:13:15.245
Because as long as it is taboo

0:13:15.258,0:13:18.579
for us to talk about the impacts[br]of different charitable acts,

0:13:18.869,0:13:20.223
more people will be blind,

0:13:20.251,0:13:21.721
more people will be poor,

0:13:21.751,0:13:25.432
more people won't have access[br]to health, education, and sanitation,

0:13:25.432,0:13:28.191
and that is something I cannot stand for.

0:13:28.921,0:13:31.115
I want us to have[br]the greatest impact possible,

0:13:31.115,0:13:33.377
and I don't think[br]we'd have that greatest impact

0:13:33.397,0:13:37.097
by focusing on hypocrisy[br]or focusing on the messenger.

0:13:37.097,0:13:39.878
We have it by focusing[br]on the charitable message.

0:13:39.878,0:13:42.088
That's the most important thing.

0:13:42.708,0:13:44.141
Let me conclude.

0:13:45.401,0:13:48.741
Time and time again, when we can,

0:13:48.761,0:13:50.923
we target the messenger, not the message;

0:13:50.943,0:13:53.213
the campaigner, not the campaign;

0:13:53.243,0:13:54.872
the person, not the argument.

0:13:55.272,0:13:58.704
The exact opposite should be true.

0:13:59.764,0:14:02.123
The key point that I'm trying to make here

0:14:02.123,0:14:05.043
is that charitable messengers[br]should not be the target,

0:14:05.073,0:14:09.244
and critiquing charitable messages[br]should no longer be taboo.

0:14:10.024,0:14:14.794
Small minds rebut people;[br]great minds rebut arguments.

0:14:14.814,0:14:17.109
I think Eleanor Roosevelt would agree.

0:14:17.529,0:14:18.552
So the next time

0:14:18.552,0:14:23.881
that a politician, a celebrity, a friend,[br]a religious leader, a charity worker

0:14:23.891,0:14:26.387
asks you to do something[br]that you don't want to do,

0:14:27.667,0:14:31.042
I want you to respond[br]by rebutting the message,

0:14:31.042,0:14:32.622
not the messenger.

0:14:32.632,0:14:35.759
The next time that a friend[br]calls out someone for hypocrisy,

0:14:35.769,0:14:39.767
I want you to tell them,[br]"Rebut the message, not the messenger."

0:14:40.477,0:14:43.316
By focusing on the hypocrisy[br]of the messenger,

0:14:43.316,0:14:44.858
we're being misguided,

0:14:45.078,0:14:47.782
but by focusing on[br]the validity of the message,

0:14:47.792,0:14:49.181
we're being productive,

0:14:49.201,0:14:51.957
we're helping to maximize impact.

0:14:51.977,0:14:53.927
And that is a cause worth fighting for.

0:14:53.927,0:14:55.077
Thank you.

0:14:55.077,0:14:58.069
(Applause)[br]