Would you have dinner with Hitler?

Would you have dinner with Hitler? ... How about lunch? How about coffee?

How about, not Hitler, but some other psychopath (1)?

Would you have dinner with a compulsive liar? A hypocrite? An idiot? How about a racist? How about a sexist? How about someone who has excelled in one field but exhibited terrible taste in another -- Pablo Picasso's misogyny, Mother Teresa's cruelty, Bill Clinton's womanizing. Would you have dinner with one of them?

Of course, there are those who believe that dialogue is always better than isolation. But where are the limits? And do you think you could have changed Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's mind? And if so, how?

In my life I have learned three things about people: First, people do not like to stick to facts, they like to stick to whatever it is they believe. Second, people judge and choose even if they know nothing or only parts of the story. And last, people have two standards, one which they apply to themselves, family, and friends, and another that they apply to everybody else.

So, should you have dinner with Hitler? Should you have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with Hitler? Should you have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with somebody who would have dinner with Hitler(3)?

If your ethical standards are rigorous, your friends will be few.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

(1) R. D. Hare (1993), Without Conscience: p. 34.

 

When 2 + 2 = 5

Imagine you have to score student performance in a Grade 10 algebra test (1). Looking at one student's step-by-step calculations you discover that at one step she calculated that 2 + 2 = 5. Obviously, for a Grade 10 student this is a very basic arithmetic mistake.

Now, because this is a very basic mistake, would you dock more or fewer points for it than for an advanced mistake? Why? Why not? Would you dock more points if the algebra problem were framed in terms of serious consequences (2)? Would you dock "a good student" the same number of points as you would "a bad student"? Would you dock a female student the same number as a male student, a white student the same number as a black student?

How about a mediocre male student who protests every self-perceived act of injustice inflicted upon him? Would you deduct the same number of points from his test as from a mediocre meek female?

Making performance judgements on math problems is relatively easy (3). Consider judgements on more important things. All other things being equal: In an election, do you interpret dishonesty or stupidity in "your candidate" with the same gravity as you do for a rival candidate? In a job competition, do you judge experiences and accomplishments of a local candidate with the same rigour as those of an outside candidate. In court, do call for the same sentence for an offender born in Switzerland as you do for an offender born in Nigeria?

It is hard work to develop and stick by good rules of judgement. And it is easy to dress up prejudice in a mantle of objectivity (4).

My favourite example comes from an Israeli parole board where cases were randomly assigned to judges, and yet the proportion of decisions in favour of the prisoners declined in the course of the sessions and reached a minimum just before the scheduled breaks (5).

Of course, the first step towards improved judgement is a correct judgement of our judgement apparatus. Unfortunately, we aren't good at that either. Consequently, as a family member, as a good friend, as a professional, as a citizen, what are your obligations to alert someone to their faulty judgement?

NOTES AND REFERENCES

(1) For example: Solve the following equation for x: -2 * (x + 2) + 2 * (-x + 2) + 2 * (2 + 2) = 0

(2) Say: "Determine the amount x (in millilitres) of midazolam that can be safely administered in preoperative sedation." "Calculate the number of battalions required to secure the border."

(3) Given these axioms (or principles) and these postulates (or rules) and these elements (or numbers), these results must follow.

(4) "My decision sexist? Oh god, far from it. His publication record just wasn't as impressive." "My decision racist? It couldn't be further from the truth. She just wasn't a good team-fit." "My decision age-ist? Oh my god, never. His coding skills just weren't up to par."

(5) Danzinger et al. (2011), Extraneous factors in judicial decisions: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1018033108 (Accessed: 5 Jul 2018)