Subjectivism, Judgement, and You

In a discussion the other night revolving around an unsavory character of mutual acquaintance, a couple of my fellow conversants attempted to make an argument on the characters behalf rooted in subjectivism. Namely, that it is impossible to ethically, accurately, and surely pass judgement on anyone because "you don't know everything about everyone, so how can you judge? Everyone's different." I can not think of a more ridiculous conclusion. Surely the premises that we do not know "everything" about any individual, and that each individual is different, will stand to reason. But the conclusion rests on some rather more dubious unstated premises: namely that a judgement must be ideal, that it is unjust to make an assumption on imperfect information, and that because there are exceptions (to borrow from a colloquial expression on the nature of absolutism), we must disregard the rule. It is these premises which are faulty.

It is in our best interest to make judgement of people on the available information. While it should not be necessary, I will state that we do not live in a perfect world, and there is no perfect information, and even if there were, it is not available to anyone. Therefore, we must make these judgments on incomplete information, even to make assumptions on little more than gut feelings. In the least extreme cases, it saves time by employing what are called heuristics. In the most, these assumptions can save your life. We do it every day in situations that are less likely to raise a hyper-sensitive eyebrow - on the freeway, as you watch someone come speeding up, weaving through traffic, it is reasonable to assume that this person will not think twice to cut you off. Or with even less warning: A car that seems to sidle over to the edge of the lane, no blinker on - any astute driver can read another's "body language" and predict a person who will change lanes without signalling. Some can even determine the second that the decision is made. Martial artists are trained to recognize these shifts in people, to know when the decision to strike has been made and how it will be thrown. They are not reacting to the movement of a fist - they already know the fist is coming.

But what do we base these decisions on? The information is hardly perfect. It comes from experience, observations which inform rules of thumb that guide us. We do not cater to the exception UNLESS caution demands it - where there is a small, but significant, probability of danger that must be acknowledged. And even that exception is a rule of thumb employed to make decisions based on the most of imperfect information. We do not know, with ANY certainty, that the spiky-haired teen in the lifted pickup truck speeding through traffic will ride your bumper, shine his brights in your mirror, pass you on the right and cut you off - but we assume he will, not just because you just watched him do it to 50 other people, but because you've seen it before.

We don't know everything, we don't know him, he is a different person from every other, and maybe, just maybe, he will suddenly have a moment of clarity and start driving responsibly. None of us, however will stake our lives, or our cars, on such a happenstance, though, will we?

Let us examine another example. You are alone and unarmed in a less-reputable area of a big city at night when this person steps into your path and asks if you can spare a cigarette or a light, or some change, or help him with something:

No need to tell me what you'd do. I know you wouldn't. Nobody with any sense would take a risk like that, because it IS a risk, one with horrifying ramifications. We don't know anything about this person, save that they claim to be in need of something. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that they honestly want a cigarette, or that sofa really isn't going to move itself. But it is easier to maintain your safety, and so extend your life, by understanding that such actions will distract your attention, move your hands away and occupy them, and otherwise make you weaker and easier to victimize.

There is a growing idea in this country that such judgements constitute an unjust "prejudice" and should be avoided. We should look for, expect, and assume, the best in people. The advocates of this idea lay guilt upon those who act on their own instincts, instincts which exist for a reason, instincts that have been carefully honed over the millenia to alert us to danger. There are near universal reactions to certain crimes - cold-blooded murder, crimes against children, sexual predation - that are similar in that they make complete sense when viewed in an evolutionary light. There is nothing more deplorable to us than that which threatens our lives, and the future of our pack and species. Why would it make any sense to act counter to these instincts?

So at this juncture we can return to our unsavory associate. This is a person who was convicted some years ago of a heinous crime, but recieved remarkable leniency on a plea bargain and has not, so far as we know, re-offended. However, the disposition of the crime is such that it is inherent in his nature - there is no amount of punishment, repentance, rehabilitation, or treatment that will purge the will to commit the crime - it can only be deterred. While available information indicates that he has not re-offended, it is extreme foolishness to act on the assumption that he is no longer dangerous. While it is entirely possible that he has gained the discipline and remorse necessary to avoid indulgence, or even achieved a miraculous cure, there is absolutely nothing to gain by taking that risk, and an immeasurable harm if mercy and compassion should prove unwarranted, and at some level we all understand and implement this measure of self-preservation. Trust must be earned, mercy must be deserved, and altruism must be undertaken with careful calculation, lest we let ourselves be destroyed in an attempt to appease a monster.