^"Most people don't kill other people is because the punishment is more severe than a person lying or being hypocritical. If you were to flip the punishments for those. People would do a lot more killin' and a lot less lying and being hypocritical."
Yes, and no. Yes, increasing the punishment for lies and hypocrisy would result in less lies and hypocrisy. And yes, decreasing the punishment for killing might result in slightly more killing. But only very slightly. Most people do not murderer people because they don't want to go to jail. Most people do not murderer people because they are simply psychologically incapable of it.
Note that I said murder, not kill. Accidentally killing someone, or doing so in self-defense or defense of someone else, or killing someone in a fit of rage, is different. But those kinds of things don't happen intentionally, so they would not be affected by changes in how killing is punished.
It's also physically much more difficult to kill someone than to lie or be a hypocrite. People tend to fight back when being killed.
"Hypothetically, Person A tells a few minor lies, they were hypocritical a couple of times but they spent nearly all of their life being selfless and helping others who were in need. One day, for whatever the reason, (automobile accident, manslaughter, murder, whatever) They ended up unjustly killing a person. Person B tells many lies, of all sorts of varying degrees, is often hypocritical and spends nearly all of their life only doing things that solely benefited them. They never killed anyone. Who is the "better" person?"
That depends on if person A murdered someone or if it was an accident.
"Therein lies the problem. There is no way to accurately quantify it."
There's no way to easily quantify it. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so.
"If a person tells one "big" lie versus a person that tells a 5, 10, 50, 100 little lies. Who is the bigger liar?"
Are these lies spread out over the course of a lifetime, or within a single day? But generally speaking, a big lie is much worse than a bunch of little lies.
"If a person is hypocritical on an important subject while another person is hypocritical on numerous unimportant subjects, who is the bigger hypocrite?"
Obviously the former.
"Is there a point system to where a person can tell so many lies and be hypocritical that they won't "count" until it meets some "determined" threshold?"
That would be kinda silly. It has to do with how a person's lies/hypocrisy affects other people. If the negative impact on others is negligible, then it's not a big deal. If the negative impact is severe, then it is.
"One should be very careful on calling a person or persons a liar(s) and/or hypocrite(s). You can "mean" the same thing by saying "Person A, you are being hypocritical about (whatever) or Person A, you are lying about (whatever.) Telling a person or persons that they are a liar or a hypocrite. You aren't recognizing anything else about that person. It dehumanizes them."
Certain people can do with some dehumanization. If someone lies or is hypocritical in a way that significantly harms a person or person, they deserve the title of liar or hypocrite.