At the risk of talking out of my depth, to me it seems very nearly a cliche in criticism to hone in on a person&#x27;s inconsistencies in order to unveil him or her as a hypocrite.<p>It ought to be well understood that human beings are not perfectly consistent animals. We struggle to maintain an unchanging public image through the course of a continuously and inevitably changing experience. If we had to live up always to our highest ideals in order to advise others on the best course of life, none of us would ever be situated to recommend a framework for living. In Seneca&#x27;s case, a school of philosophy would today be without many of its best-known works.<p>Incidentally, I think the fact of our inconsistency is a strong argument in favor of protecting privacy. Most of us have unrealistic and irrational expectations of consistency for others. The only way to maintain a sense of peace under these circumstances is to maintain the freedom to say one thing and do another, at least some of the time. A world without privacy might well be one in which we are all subject to the sort of treatment Seneca has received from this article&#x27;s writer.