WEBVTT

00:00:15.595 --> 00:00:17.898
Phony philanthropist,

00:00:17.898 --> 00:00:20.138
humanitarian hypocrite,

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

00:00:22.802 --> 00:00:24.917
fraudulent altruist,

00:00:24.937 --> 00:00:27.440
charitable pretender -

00:00:28.210 --> 00:00:31.489
however you describe them,
one thing's for sure:

00:00:31.489 --> 00:00:34.852
There are few things in life
that we hate more

00:00:34.852 --> 00:00:37.787
than moralizing hypocrites,

00:00:37.787 --> 00:00:42.965
people who ask us to do charitable acts
but are themselves hypocritical.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:42.965 --> 00:00:44.723
Now, in my line of work,

00:00:44.723 --> 00:00:45.856
working with charities,

00:00:45.856 --> 00:00:47.688
social enterprises,

00:00:47.688 --> 00:00:49.847
foundations, and aid agencies,

00:00:49.867 --> 00:00:53.667
I hear the word "hypocrite" all the time.

00:00:54.137 --> 00:00:55.701
When Bono,

00:00:55.701 --> 00:01:01.250
the sunglass-wearing, tax-avoiding,
mansion-living, jet-setting Irishman,

00:01:01.700 --> 00:01:04.383
when he asks people to donate to charity,

00:01:04.383 --> 00:01:05.393
what do we say?

00:01:05.393 --> 00:01:07.100
We say, "Hypocrite!"

00:01:07.480 --> 00:01:10.180
When Al Gore campaigns on climate change,

00:01:10.180 --> 00:01:13.768
a man who many years

00:01:13.768 --> 00:01:17.375
has had a utility bill
more than 20 times the average household,

00:01:17.395 --> 00:01:19.475
we say, "Hypocrite!"

00:01:20.015 --> 00:01:22.845
When the CEO of the Kony campaign

00:01:22.845 --> 00:01:24.993
was, on one hand,
asking us to donate money

00:01:24.993 --> 00:01:26.565
and saying he cared

00:01:26.565 --> 00:01:31.245
but, on the other hand, was taking home
a charity salary of $90,000,

00:01:31.245 --> 00:01:34.361
we said - you guessed it - "Hypocrite!"

00:01:34.673 --> 00:01:36.467
You see, we hate hypocrites.

00:01:36.467 --> 00:01:39.182
We hate people who purport
to have certain beliefs

00:01:39.182 --> 00:01:41.109
that we don't actually think they have

00:01:41.109 --> 00:01:43.641
when their actions
don't reflect those beliefs.

00:01:45.031 --> 00:01:49.845
And I want to ask us,
"Should we call out people for hypocrisy?

00:01:49.845 --> 00:01:53.980
People who we think are hypocrites,
should we give them that label?"

00:01:54.880 --> 00:01:59.364
Now, I hate genuine hypocrisy
as much as the next person,

00:01:59.364 --> 00:02:01.959
but I want to suggest -
and this is a big "but" -

00:02:01.959 --> 00:02:05.425
I want to suggest
that calling out people for hypocrisy

00:02:05.425 --> 00:02:07.525
is misguided at best,

00:02:07.525 --> 00:02:10.552
downright dangerous at worst.

00:02:11.692 --> 00:02:13.741
The key problem here

00:02:13.741 --> 00:02:16.973
is that often when we accuse
people of hypocrisy,

00:02:16.973 --> 00:02:18.949
it's not actually hypocrisy.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:19.679 --> 00:02:24.018
And there's a few common mistakes
that we make time and time again.

00:02:24.548 --> 00:02:26.321
The first mistake that we make

00:02:26.321 --> 00:02:29.824
is that we assume that
all charitable acts are equivalent.

00:02:30.564 --> 00:02:34.690
Say someone tells you
that they support a carbon trading scheme.

00:02:34.700 --> 00:02:39.245
We interpret that as just that person
supports the environment,

00:02:39.245 --> 00:02:42.329
and so if they don't recycle,
we say, "Hypocrite!"

00:02:42.679 --> 00:02:47.996
If someone asks you for money
for water purification tablets

00:02:48.016 --> 00:02:49.992
for a country like Myanmar,

00:02:50.012 --> 00:02:53.847
we assume, oh, that person
supports fresh clean water,

00:02:53.847 --> 00:02:57.346
and so if they don't themselves
give money to build water wells,

00:02:57.346 --> 00:02:59.203
we say, "Hypocrite!"

00:02:59.543 --> 00:03:00.544
But the reality

00:03:00.544 --> 00:03:03.944
is that there are multiple different ways
of solving every problem,

00:03:03.944 --> 00:03:06.144
some that are far more
effective than others,

00:03:06.144 --> 00:03:09.394
and just because you support
some approaches to problems

00:03:09.394 --> 00:03:14.439
doesn't mean you can or should or will
support every approach.

00:03:14.439 --> 00:03:16.645
That's the first mistake we commonly make.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:17.045 --> 00:03:19.698
The second problem
that we often come across,

00:03:19.698 --> 00:03:21.360
the second mistake that we make

00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:27.096
is that we compare to the extremes
of selflessness and selfishness.

00:03:27.556 --> 00:03:29.680
Say you walk into a cafe,

00:03:29.680 --> 00:03:34.897
and there's a sign on the wall that says,
"We donate 20% of our profits to charity."

00:03:34.897 --> 00:03:38.270
You'd probably think,
"What a great café! What good people!

00:03:38.270 --> 00:03:40.482
Donating a bit
of their profits to charity."

00:03:41.032 --> 00:03:45.072
And so when we have mostly profit-making,

00:03:45.072 --> 00:03:47.805
mostly selfishness but a bit of altruism,

00:03:47.805 --> 00:03:50.029
we like it, we think of it
as a good thing.

00:03:50.733 --> 00:03:53.023
But then if someone works for a charity,

00:03:53.023 --> 00:03:56.404
if someone dedicates
their entire career to a good cause,

00:03:56.404 --> 00:03:59.254
if someone is mostly selfless

00:03:59.254 --> 00:04:02.036
but then takes home
a reasonably decent salary,

00:04:02.036 --> 00:04:04.306
we say, "Hah, hypocrite!"

00:04:04.666 --> 00:04:08.868
So we're fine with mostly selfish
with a touch of altruism

00:04:08.868 --> 00:04:12.677
but not mostly altruistic
with a touch of selfish.

00:04:12.937 --> 00:04:14.653
You can be 10% altruistic,

00:04:14.653 --> 00:04:16.483
but you can't be 90%,

00:04:16.483 --> 00:04:18.823
which doesn't make any sense.

00:04:18.823 --> 00:04:23.567
We prefer honest greed
to imperfect generosity.

00:04:23.567 --> 00:04:25.564
We compare to the extremes

00:04:25.564 --> 00:04:28.697
rather than comparing people
to other people.

00:04:28.907 --> 00:04:30.499
That's the second mistake.

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:30.739 --> 00:04:32.511
The third mistake we make

00:04:32.511 --> 00:04:33.525
is that we assume

00:04:33.525 --> 00:04:37.912
that because someone supports
a collective response to something,

00:04:37.912 --> 00:04:39.934
individual action must follow.

00:04:39.934 --> 00:04:41.363
And so if a politician says

00:04:41.363 --> 00:04:44.371
that they support
government-provided education,

00:04:44.371 --> 00:04:47.047
but they send their kids
to private independent schools,

00:04:47.047 --> 00:04:49.199
we say, "Hypocrite."

00:04:49.199 --> 00:04:53.479
If someone was to say they supported
a global ban on meat consumption,

00:04:53.479 --> 00:04:55.993
and yet they themselves ate meat,

00:04:55.993 --> 00:04:58.341
we might say, "Hypocrite."

00:04:58.711 --> 00:05:02.125
But the reality is it's totally rational

00:05:02.715 --> 00:05:06.465
often to support a collective response

00:05:06.835 --> 00:05:10.287
without necessarily wanting
to be the one to act alone,

00:05:10.287 --> 00:05:12.551
to act individually, to bear the cost.

00:05:12.551 --> 00:05:14.355
It's very rational.

00:05:14.355 --> 00:05:17.326
For example, if you act in a certain way,

00:05:17.326 --> 00:05:19.739
such as by taking really short showers

00:05:19.739 --> 00:05:23.573
or taking the train instead of a plane
to save on carbon emissions,

00:05:23.573 --> 00:05:26.800
you bear the full cost of your action,

00:05:26.800 --> 00:05:30.172
and yet the benefits
are dispersed by seven billion people.

00:05:30.466 --> 00:05:33.767
And so in order for it to be rational
for you to do that,

00:05:33.767 --> 00:05:37.749
the benefits really need
to be seven billion times the cost,

00:05:37.749 --> 00:05:39.603
which is rarely going to be the case.

00:05:39.603 --> 00:05:44.348
That's why initiatives such as Earth Hour
often don't have a sustained impact.

00:05:44.688 --> 00:05:47.703
It's not hypocritical to be rational.

NOTE Paragraph

00:05:48.803 --> 00:05:50.853
The fourth mistake that we often make

00:05:50.853 --> 00:05:53.228
is that we assume
that if someone really cares,

00:05:53.228 --> 00:05:55.715
if someone really wants the best outcome,

00:05:55.715 --> 00:05:59.043
they'll necessarily support
the ideal policy.

00:05:59.513 --> 00:06:02.270
So when Kevin Rudd,
the former Prime Minister of Australia,

00:06:02.270 --> 00:06:06.179
said climate change is the greatest
moral challenge of our time,

00:06:06.189 --> 00:06:10.258
and then he supported
watered-down environmental legislation,

00:06:10.258 --> 00:06:11.958
we said, "Hypocrite."

00:06:12.548 --> 00:06:15.720
But the reality is sometimes
you need to be strategic.

00:06:16.120 --> 00:06:19.410
And if that ideal policy,
if the ideal situation

00:06:19.410 --> 00:06:21.919
would not receive parliamentary support,

00:06:21.919 --> 00:06:26.594
if that would be scrapped
by the next Parliament in a year or two,

00:06:26.594 --> 00:06:29.670
then sometimes opting
for the second-best approach

00:06:29.670 --> 00:06:32.047
is actually more sustainable
and actually better

00:06:32.057 --> 00:06:34.132
and actually has a greater impact.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:34.452 --> 00:06:39.138
Another common mistake we make
is that we conflate legality and morality.

00:06:39.488 --> 00:06:43.518
If someone was to stand up
and say they opposed prostitution,

00:06:43.518 --> 00:06:46.053
they thought prostitution was wrong,

00:06:46.053 --> 00:06:48.560
and yet then they voted
for it to be legal,

00:06:48.560 --> 00:06:50.582
we might say, "Hypocrite."

00:06:50.582 --> 00:06:53.954
But questions of legality and morality
are very different.

00:06:55.024 --> 00:06:58.963
You see, if making prostitution legal

00:06:58.963 --> 00:07:01.846
meant that victims of abuse
could come forward

00:07:01.846 --> 00:07:05.282
without fear of persecution
or prosecution,

00:07:05.282 --> 00:07:07.378
then it might be the right thing to do,

00:07:07.378 --> 00:07:11.561
irrespective of whether you thought
it was morally right or wrong.

00:07:11.561 --> 00:07:15.343
Likewise, it's entirely consistent
for someone to say

00:07:15.343 --> 00:07:19.100
that they themselves,
say for religious reasons,

00:07:19.360 --> 00:07:21.758
don't believe in gay marriage,

00:07:21.758 --> 00:07:25.107
but for that same person to say
they think it should be legal.

00:07:25.477 --> 00:07:28.090
Because questions of legality
also take into account

00:07:28.090 --> 00:07:32.804
other people's beliefs and opinions
and sexual preferences.

00:07:33.184 --> 00:07:35.827
We shouldn't conflate
legality and morality.

00:07:36.587 --> 00:07:38.497
And the final mistake that we often make

00:07:38.497 --> 00:07:41.926
is we just don't distinguish
between different circumstances.

00:07:41.926 --> 00:07:44.174
When Obama came out and said

00:07:44.174 --> 00:07:49.525
that having armed security in every school
wasn't the answer to gun violence,

00:07:49.525 --> 00:07:52.676
the NRA responded,
not by attacking the argument,

00:07:52.676 --> 00:07:54.353
but by attacking the person.

00:07:54.353 --> 00:07:57.523
They ran ad campaigns,
saying that Obama was a hypocrite

00:07:57.523 --> 00:08:00.483
because he had armed security
for his daughters.

00:08:00.903 --> 00:08:04.716
We often don't distinguish
different circumstances.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:04.736 --> 00:08:07.762
My point here is that often
when we accuse people of hypocrisy,

00:08:07.782 --> 00:08:10.203
it's simply not hypocritical.

00:08:10.203 --> 00:08:12.235
We assume that we know people's beliefs,

00:08:12.235 --> 00:08:15.822
we assume we know why people
are acting in a certain way,

00:08:15.822 --> 00:08:18.434
but it's often arrogant to assume that.

00:08:18.434 --> 00:08:21.863
We're too quick to condemn,
too slow to ask why.

00:08:22.503 --> 00:08:25.498
But let's assume for a moment
that it was hypocritical,

00:08:25.508 --> 00:08:29.664
that these people did actually act
in a hypocritical manner.

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:30.194 --> 00:08:34.647
The problem here is that
the existence of hypocrisy

00:08:34.647 --> 00:08:38.645
doesn't actually undermine
the argument that is being made.

00:08:38.645 --> 00:08:41.924
It's a convenient distraction,
but it's not a rebuttal.

00:08:41.924 --> 00:08:44.640
I mean the argument that smoking is bad

00:08:45.030 --> 00:08:49.429
doesn't change because the person
who is making it is a smoker.

00:08:49.729 --> 00:08:54.275
You can know right or wrong
without being morally perfect yourself.

00:08:54.275 --> 00:08:57.574
And you should be able to ask people
to do what is right.

00:08:57.574 --> 00:09:00.606
That shouldn't just be
the purview of the morally perfect.

00:09:02.056 --> 00:09:05.772
And so, if we shouldn't
call out people for hypocrisy,

00:09:05.772 --> 00:09:09.903
if we shouldn't focus
on the charitable messenger,

00:09:09.903 --> 00:09:11.447
what should we do?

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:11.747 --> 00:09:12.753
I want to say

00:09:12.753 --> 00:09:17.132
that we should discuss and debate
and critique the charitable message.

00:09:17.702 --> 00:09:19.778
Now, with me I have two jugs.

00:09:20.128 --> 00:09:21.875
One of those represents the person,

00:09:21.875 --> 00:09:25.264
one of those represents
the messenger in question,

00:09:25.264 --> 00:09:28.141
and the other one represents
the argument, the message.

00:09:28.141 --> 00:09:30.866
Now, when we call out people
for hypocrisy,

00:09:30.866 --> 00:09:33.681
when we use that hypocrisy argument,

00:09:33.691 --> 00:09:36.169
when we use it to attack a person,

00:09:36.179 --> 00:09:37.970
this is what happens.

00:09:39.130 --> 00:09:40.727
It's easy to make them bleed.

00:09:40.727 --> 00:09:42.646
It's easy to inflict pain.

00:09:43.136 --> 00:09:45.632
After all, they're a fallible person.

00:09:47.042 --> 00:09:48.175
But what's interesting

00:09:48.175 --> 00:09:50.298
is that we don't discuss,
we don't critique,

00:09:50.298 --> 00:09:53.252
we don't criticize the charitable message.

00:09:55.862 --> 00:09:57.246
And so that's the status quo,

00:09:57.246 --> 00:09:59.552
that's the situation we find ourselves in,

00:09:59.552 --> 00:10:03.371
where attacking the charitable
messenger is all too easy

00:10:03.391 --> 00:10:07.240
and attacking the charitable
message is often taboo.

00:10:08.480 --> 00:10:09.623
Why is this?

00:10:09.623 --> 00:10:13.852
Well, I think we often think of charity
as somewhat of a taboo subject.

00:10:13.872 --> 00:10:15.734
We don't like criticizing it.

00:10:15.744 --> 00:10:18.904
Indeed, we just think of it as doing good.

00:10:18.914 --> 00:10:21.810
That's why you can do a lot of things
in the name of charity.

00:10:21.810 --> 00:10:23.616
(Laughter)

00:10:24.396 --> 00:10:27.565
If you want an excuse
to do a naked calendar,

00:10:27.565 --> 00:10:29.420
do it in the name of charity.

00:10:29.750 --> 00:10:32.988
If you want an excuse to do a marathon,
do it in the name of charity.

00:10:32.988 --> 00:10:35.418
If you want an excuse
to make three of your friends,

00:10:35.418 --> 00:10:36.846
to force three of your friends

00:10:36.846 --> 00:10:39.278
to pour a bucket of ice cold water
over their heads,

00:10:39.278 --> 00:10:40.275
(Laughter)

00:10:40.275 --> 00:10:42.135
do it in the name of charity.

00:10:42.135 --> 00:10:45.779
You see, we find it difficult
to criticize acts of charity.

00:10:45.779 --> 00:10:48.091
We think of charity as one and the same,

00:10:48.111 --> 00:10:50.834
but not all charities are created equal,

00:10:50.844 --> 00:10:54.817
not all approaches to problems
are equally effective.

00:10:55.437 --> 00:10:57.583
One of the things
that the organization I run,

00:10:57.583 --> 00:10:58.742
180 Degrees Consulting,

00:10:58.742 --> 00:11:00.114
specializes in

00:11:00.114 --> 00:11:01.585
is measuring the social impact

00:11:01.585 --> 00:11:04.851
of different programs
and different organizations,

00:11:04.851 --> 00:11:06.206
and it's very clear to me

00:11:06.206 --> 00:11:08.522
that some approaches, some charities,

00:11:08.522 --> 00:11:13.368
are hundreds, even thousands, of times
more effective than other approaches.

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:13.368 --> 00:11:14.572
And so what that means

00:11:14.572 --> 00:11:17.857
is that it's more important
to do the right act,

00:11:17.857 --> 00:11:19.341
the most effective act,

00:11:19.341 --> 00:11:22.006
than to merely do an action.

00:11:22.591 --> 00:11:24.737
An action is merely a means to an end.

00:11:24.747 --> 00:11:27.794
We focus on it when we accuse
people of hypocrisy,

00:11:27.794 --> 00:11:31.656
but focusing on the impact
is far more important.

00:11:32.436 --> 00:11:34.011
It's far more important

00:11:34.011 --> 00:11:37.322
because in a world with unlimited problems

00:11:37.332 --> 00:11:40.625
but limited time, limited resources,
and limited money,

00:11:40.635 --> 00:11:45.975
we can't afford to not have
the greatest social impact possible.

00:11:45.975 --> 00:11:47.474
We can't afford it.

00:11:47.474 --> 00:11:52.642
We can't afford for doing good
to merely be a feel-good endeavor.

00:11:52.662 --> 00:11:55.948
It must be an intellectual
endeavor as well.

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:56.308 --> 00:11:58.215
Let me give you one example.

00:11:58.645 --> 00:12:01.134
Say you have $42,000,

00:12:01.154 --> 00:12:04.367
and you want to spend that money
helping blind people.

00:12:04.387 --> 00:12:06.779
You can spend that money
in a few different ways.

00:12:07.099 --> 00:12:10.125
One way is by not giving it at all.

00:12:10.135 --> 00:12:14.440
The second way is by using the money
to train a guide dog.

00:12:14.450 --> 00:12:17.326
It cost about $42,000
to train a guide dog.

00:12:17.336 --> 00:12:18.640
And the third option

00:12:18.650 --> 00:12:21.749
is that you can use it
to fund a low-cost eye surgery

00:12:21.759 --> 00:12:22.812
in a place like India,

00:12:22.832 --> 00:12:26.308
which costs about $75 per surgery.

00:12:26.328 --> 00:12:28.985
And so with that $42,000,

00:12:28.995 --> 00:12:31.429
you can either help no blind people,

00:12:31.699 --> 00:12:33.306
one blind person,

00:12:33.316 --> 00:12:35.902
or 560 blind people.

00:12:36.322 --> 00:12:39.030
I do not think it should be taboo

00:12:39.290 --> 00:12:44.233
to argue that you should not give money
to training the guide dog,

00:12:44.253 --> 00:12:45.771
as cute as guide dogs are

00:12:45.791 --> 00:12:49.222
and as important guide dogs are
for the people who use them,

00:12:49.422 --> 00:12:53.834
and that you should instead
give money for the low-cost eye surgery.

00:12:54.584 --> 00:12:56.684
I know that sounds bad.

00:12:56.944 --> 00:12:58.875
It sounds unethical.

00:12:59.455 --> 00:13:01.313
It almost sounds evil.

00:13:01.753 --> 00:13:05.634
Once we've done the effective approaches,
we can do the less effective approaches,

00:13:05.654 --> 00:13:07.877
but I don't think
less effective approaches

00:13:07.877 --> 00:13:11.621
should come at the expense
of the more effective approaches.

00:13:12.371 --> 00:13:15.245
Because as long as it is taboo

00:13:15.258 --> 00:13:18.579
for us to talk about the impacts
of different charitable acts,

00:13:18.869 --> 00:13:20.223
more people will be blind,

00:13:20.251 --> 00:13:21.721
more people will be poor,

00:13:21.751 --> 00:13:25.432
more people won't have access
to health, education, and sanitation,

00:13:25.432 --> 00:13:28.191
and that is something I cannot stand for.

00:13:28.921 --> 00:13:31.115
I want us to have
the greatest impact possible,

00:13:31.115 --> 00:13:33.377
and I don't think
we'd have that greatest impact

00:13:33.397 --> 00:13:37.097
by focusing on hypocrisy
or focusing on the messenger.

00:13:37.097 --> 00:13:39.878
We have it by focusing
on the charitable message.

00:13:39.878 --> 00:13:42.088
That's the most important thing.

NOTE Paragraph

00:13:42.708 --> 00:13:44.141
Let me conclude.

00:13:45.401 --> 00:13:48.741
Time and time again, when we can,

00:13:48.761 --> 00:13:50.923
we target the messenger, not the message;

00:13:50.943 --> 00:13:53.213
the campaigner, not the campaign;

00:13:53.243 --> 00:13:54.872
the person, not the argument.

00:13:55.272 --> 00:13:58.704
The exact opposite should be true.

00:13:59.764 --> 00:14:02.123
The key point that I'm trying to make here

00:14:02.123 --> 00:14:05.043
is that charitable messengers
should not be the target,

00:14:05.073 --> 00:14:09.244
and critiquing charitable messages
should no longer be taboo.

00:14:10.024 --> 00:14:14.794
Small minds rebut people;
great minds rebut arguments.

00:14:14.814 --> 00:14:17.109
I think Eleanor Roosevelt would agree.

00:14:17.529 --> 00:14:18.552
So the next time

00:14:18.552 --> 00:14:23.881
that a politician, a celebrity, a friend,
a religious leader, a charity worker

00:14:23.891 --> 00:14:26.387
asks you to do something
that you don't want to do,

00:14:27.667 --> 00:14:31.042
I want you to respond
by rebutting the message,

00:14:31.042 --> 00:14:32.622
not the messenger.

00:14:32.632 --> 00:14:35.759
The next time that a friend
calls out someone for hypocrisy,

00:14:35.769 --> 00:14:39.767
I want you to tell them,
"Rebut the message, not the messenger."

00:14:40.477 --> 00:14:43.316
By focusing on the hypocrisy
of the messenger,

00:14:43.316 --> 00:14:44.858
we're being misguided,

00:14:45.078 --> 00:14:47.782
but by focusing on
the validity of the message,

00:14:47.792 --> 00:14:49.181
we're being productive,

00:14:49.201 --> 00:14:51.957
we're helping to maximize impact.

00:14:51.977 --> 00:14:53.927
And that is a cause worth fighting for.

00:14:53.927 --> 00:14:55.077
Thank you.

00:14:55.077 --> 00:14:58.069
(Applause)