I agree that if anyone should be given the benefit of the doubt about not being a hypocrite, it might be a Buddhist since the average Buddhist is quite self-aware.

Still, I'm not sure Buddhists have reckoned fully with the underlying humanistic motive. The closest line of argument I've seen is the deterministic one: Buddhists don't want to end their suffering or to be happy; they maintain only that that's what the human body does under sufficient training, as a matter of strict causality or probability. So Buddhism becomes purely descriptive, with no prescriptive aspirations at all.

But that seems to me quite the dodge. Other causal chains are possible. Isn't one better than the other? If Buddhist naturalism entails the emptiness of all evaluative questions, I think Buddhism is far more problematic than we might be led at first to think.