An action can be understandable, yet “not okay.” Many harmful actions fall into this category. Yet in our binary thinking, we tend to 1) deny that a “not okay” action is understandable and 2) downplay the “not okayness” of actions we’ve come to find understandable.
- “Not okay; not understandable” leads us to desire harsh punishments and retribution, “guilt-free” — because the action was so bad and impossible to defend, and thus obviously arising out of a rotten soul.
- “Is okay because its understandable” — leads us to endorse actions that harm real, living, worthy-of-compassion individuals. To alleviate our moral concern, we often file the victims away as mere statistics or perhaps as deserving given their diffuse or direct culpability in the perpetrator’s actions.
A mechanism of polarization is when one side takes perspective #1 and the other side perspective #2. The apparent insanity of the others’ position — and thus the importance of taking a strong stance against it — leads to both sides doubling-down on their number. #1 will take an increasingly intolerant stance on the “not okay” action (so as to show their unyielding opposition to it), and #2 will apologize away, next endorse and finally advocate truly harmful behavior.
Misinformation and echo chambers also play a role. Believers of #1 emphasize the grisly details of the “not okayness” and suppress details that might evoke sympathy. Believers of #2 emphasize the (very real) root-causes of the “not okayness” — showing society’s or Group X’s culpability — and suppress any details that reduce sympathy.
To avoid this trap, we should:
- Seek counter-evidence — understand emotionally potent stories in their statistical context (e.g. how often does this happen? Is this story representative of the broader phenomenon?), and to put some effort into understanding “the bad guy” — what is their motivation? Why would they do such a horrible thing? Do they perhaps have a story that is understandable, no matter how “not okay” it is?
- Treat people as individuals — refuse to believe that a group is defined by its worst members until researching it extensively. “Extensively” demands getting out of our echo-chamber. In my experience, it usually entails learning some surprising detail that shifts my position (even if by the tiniest amount). After all, “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that” (John Stewart Mill) and “If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle” (Sun Tzu).
- Treat people with compassion. Compassion is a safety switch — if we’ve incorrectly diagnosed someone as irredeemably evil yet treat them with compassion nonetheless, we’ve avoided ourselves committing the most horrific of injustices. Compassion isn’t condoning nor failing to intervene on the “not okay” or horrific action; rather, it is understanding what Bryan Stephenson says: “Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”
- Evaluate ourselves by the goodness we do, not the “evils” we detect and condemn in others. While “calling out” may serve a role in the pursuit of justice, piling on — as in, being the 1 millionth person to condemn this month’s public enemy #1 — might not do as much good as we think it does. Thus we should “call out” with care, lest we feed our inner self-righteousness beast at someone else’s expense (which we’re are inclined to do).
If justice is important at all, it is important to get right. Even apathy is better than misdirected retribution.
