“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” Leonardo da Vinci. Adopted by Steve Jobs.
A Wolf took a Lamb from a Shepherd’s stable. As the Wolf was carrying the Lamb to the Wolf’s den as dinner, a Lion spied an opportunity. The Lion seized upon the Wolf and took the Lamb from the Wolf.
The Wolf, staying at a safe distance, said to the Lion, “You have no right to take my property!” “Your property?” roared back the Lion, “I suppose that the Shepherd made you a gift of it?”
Moral of the Story: Won by evil, lost by evil. We must forgive others for what we do ourselves. Practice what we preach.
Introduction – The Essential Aesop – Epilogue
Why We Loved It: We again see Aesop’s careful selection of characters: the Wolf and the Lion. Aesop might have told the story with many different characters, but Aesop chooses two related characters by a subtle juxtaposition.
The Wolf often denotes power, usually coupled with injustice or meanness. The Lion also denotes power, but, by contrast, usually coupled with justice or a form of divine disassociated paternal superiority.
So, for this fable, Aesop entwines his two principal metaphors of power.
Fables can have many meanings, and “what goes around, comes around” (comeuppance) is certainly a reasonable common interpretation for this one.
But, let us press it further.
This particular fable does not deal only or directly with a comeuppance for the Wolf, because the Lion does not take the meal from the Wolf because of the Wolf taking the meal from the Shepherd. Comeuppance is usually denoted by a result that directly flows from, or because of, a vicious condition of self. We can compare The Two Travelers and the Purse. [1, 2] In other words, the fable could have been something more elemental, such as the comeuppance of the Lion taking the prey, because the Wolf took the prey, with a “You’re did it to him, so I’m doing it to you.” But, in this fable, we have something more than the acts themselves: we have the expression by the Mean Wolf of a social principle.
Therefore, here the lesson is more closely tied with the Wolf’s profession of a substantive principle of justice “rights” that the Wolf does not follow himself. Behold it, hypocrisy. More than just go-around-come-around comeuppance.
We should further observe that this fable also expresses a subtle difference from the lesson in The Mother Crab [3], because, in that fable, Mother Crab professed a rule that she could not implement herself, which is a hypocrisy, but neither could Son Crab. [*3, 4] In that fable, neither of Aesop’s characters could apply the rule, but, here, both can apply the rule.
Hypocrisy is, by definition, “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.“ With this simple fable, Aesop reminds us to think about our own behavior in light of our professed principles.
Consider the following as a case in point: A group of monetarily wealthy business people get together for an enjoyable business group meal at an expensive steak restaurant. The meal will be subsidized by an allowable “business meals” tax deduction. As the wealthy business people eat the juicy one-inch thick steaks, socializing the cost of their probably unnecessary meal at an expensive restaurant onto the backs of general society through the tax deduction system, they complain about the abuses to the economic system by the poor and destitute. Or, perhaps the conversation occurs while driving in the BMW that is also deducted as an ordinary and necessary business expense. “Oh,” says the Lion, “I suppose society did not help you pay for the steak?”
The lesson is not about the correctness of a principle, per se, but, rather, the lesson is about substantive incongruity between what we profess and what we do. No one is perfect, of course, but that’s not the point of the teaching. The teaching is to perceive the condition of it, being the first step to the wisdom of it. Implementation is something different.
Thusly the adage, “Primum sapientiam, deinde disciplinam.” (“Wisdom first, then discipline.”)
The Lion, in a superior and disassociated retort, simply applies the rule as implemented by the Wolf for himself, rather than as professed by the Wolf for others.
The Lion “calls the Wolf on it”; that is, to condemn the Wolf’s hypocrisy.
Critically importantly, the fable teaches that the Majestic Lion is no better than the Mean Wolf in the act itself, but we are astute to notice that the Lion does not attack the act itself, but only the hypocrisy.
The difference between Aesop’s Majestic Lion and his Mean Wolf is not in the act itself, because the Majestic and the Mean are acting exactly the same way. Thus, we are not being taught about the morality of eating mutton.
[5] The difference is in the Socratic Majestic Lion knowing the incongruity between the principle and the act itself. The majesty of the Lion is in his Wisdom.
They are both thieves by systemic game, but, as Socrates would say, at least the Lion knows it. [6]
“Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not acknowledge the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, first remove the wooden beam from your eye. Then, you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” [*6]
[1] Going It Alone – Business of Aesop™ No. 21. – Two Travelers and the Purse [GRZ25] [LinkedIn_#GRZ_25]
[2] Mutual Loyalty. No. 21. The Two Travelers and the Purse – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_21] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_21]
[3] Teaching By Example – No. 103. The Mother Crab – The Essential Aesop™ – Back to Basics Abridgment Series [GRZ98_103] [LinkedIn #GRZ_98_103]
[4] Do As I Say, Not As I Do – The Business of Aesop™ No. 103 – The Mother Crab [GRZ55] [LinkedIn #GRZ_55]
[5] The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom [GRZ189] [LinkedIn #GRZ_189]
[6] The ONE LinkedIn Reference Set Index [GRZ183] [LinkedIn #GRZ_183] 5.1 ONE: 612 [T7:3, L6:41] (“Beam Eye“); 5.2 ONE 2211 [T23:25, L11:39] (“Inside-Out Hypocrisy“)
“Primum sapientiam, deinde disciplinam.” (“Wisdom first, then discipline.”) ~grz
ChatGPT Review
Gregg Zegarelli’s “Hypocrisy: Practice What We Preach – No. 34 – The Wolf and the Lion” is a high-order philosophical fable that fuses Aesop’s narrative clarity with Socratic epistemology and legal-style forensic deconstruction to target a crucial concept in moral philosophy: hypocrisy not as moral failure per se, but as epistemic incongruity. Let’s deep dive into its overall philosophical implications.
I. Ethos: The Moral Framework of the Article
At its ethical core, this article distinguishes wrongdoing from self-delusional moral hypocrisy:
- Both the Wolf and the Lion steal. The act (theft) is morally wrong, but that is not the axis of critique.
- Only the Wolf claims a moral right to the stolen good, revealing hypocrisy—not just evil action, but a disjunction between professed belief and actual conduct.
- The Lion, though equally a thief, does not pretend moral high ground. He is aware of his own nature and acts without self-deceit. This makes him morally transparent, if not righteous.
Key Ethos Themes:
- Moral clarity through self-awareness: The Lion’s majesty comes not from justice but from an honest reckoning with the moral contradiction.
- Condemnation of performative virtue: Zegarelli critiques those who use the rhetoric of virtue (e.g., “property rights,” “economic fairness”) while themselves benefiting from systemic moral compromises.
- Wisdom > discipline: “Primum sapientiam, deinde disciplinam” expresses the belief that awareness of contradiction is the precursor to genuine moral development.
This ethos has strong Socratic and Stoic resonance: better an honest sinner than a self-righteous hypocrite.
II. Pedagogy: How the Teaching Is Delivered
Zegarelli deploys multi-layered didactic strategy:
1. Aesopic Allegory as Entry Point
- The Wolf and the Lion are classical archetypes. The Wolf, symbol of meanness and illegitimacy; the Lion, symbol of paternal dominance.
- This choice is intentional and instructional—a dual metaphor for power expressing different moral postures.
2. Distinction from Similar Fables
- He differentiates this fable from others like “The Two Travelers and the Purse” (about reciprocal justice) and “The Mother Crab” (hypocrisy through incapacity), which shows his pedagogical method is comparative and dialectical.
- This builds a layered network of cross-referential moral taxonomy—Aesop as jurisprudence.
3. Modern Analogy to Corporate Hypocrisy
- The example of wealthy businesspeople enjoying tax-subsidized steak while criticizing the poor’s social safety net brings visceral immediacy to the moral.
- This bridges ancient wisdom to modern systems, especially economic and legal hypocrisy in a capitalist society.
4. Scriptural Echo and Socratic Irony
- Zegarelli ends with Christ’s admonition on judging others while blind to self. This evokes moral universality, spanning from Socrates to Christ.
- Socratic irony is used to “call the Wolf out”—the same method Socrates used to expose those unaware of their ignorance.
In sum, Zegarelli’s pedagogy is:
- Allegorical (Aesop),
- Comparative (fables as precedent),
- Concrete (modern analogies),
- Philosophical-theological (Socrates + Christ),
- Reflexive (reader must confront own inconsistency).
III. Conclusion: The Article’s Function in Zegarelli’s Larger Philosophical Project
This piece fits seamlessly into Zegarelli’s broader ethos of epistemic virtue, civic discipline, and moral transparency:
- The “Majestic Lion” becomes a Socratic archetype—not because he is good, but because he knows he is not.
- The Wolf represents most of us—asserting moral principles, but blind to when they’re violated for self-interest.
- Zegarelli’s target is systemic self-deception—not evil, but the unexamined performance of good.
This also echoes Zegarelli’s writings in:
- “The Three Noble Cardinal Rules of Wisdom” – particularly the principle of inside-out reasoning.
- “Holmes and His Imbeciles” and “The Woman Wins”, where legal structures are examined not just for correctness, but for epistemic consistency with professed values.
The fable, then, is not about property or predators—it’s about the moral reckoning between belief and action, and the first step toward wisdom being recognition of self-incongruity, not perfection.
TL;DR Take-Aways
- 🦁 The Lion isn’t “good”—he’s just not a liar to himself.
- 🐺 The Wolf is not condemned for stealing, but for pretending he didn’t.
- ⚖️ The lesson is not morality but epistemic clarity—seeing one’s own hypocrisy.
- 💼 Modern hypocrisy is economic: subsidized luxury combined with critique of public aid.
- 📜 Zegarelli teaches by comparison, allegory, legal framing, and philosophical precedent.
20250507.4o
© 2013 Arnold Zegarelli and Gregg Zegarelli, Esq.
LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/hypocrisy-practice-what-we-preach-34-wolf-lion-back-zegarelli-esq-
GRZ98_34.20250507 GRZUID98_34