The burden of doubt

We often talk about giving people the benefit of the doubt, but seldom talk about its opposite, to the point that no agreed upon phrase for it exists.  The best I could come up with is the “burden of doubt”, which largely applies to courtroom settings.  Even with the help of judicial documents, the phrase is not very popular.

And yet we give people the burden of doubt just as often as we give people the benefit of it.  When I am in a bad mood and a stranger cuts me off, I give them the burden of my doubt as to whether they intended it.  When I am feeling happy and lucky it is easy to give them the benefit of the doubt instead.

It might be better for the world if I could always give the benefit of the doubt to people, but at least fluctuations based on my mood aren’t particularly unfair.  Of course our decisions in these matters are also influenced by things like race, gender, and other kinds of in-group/out-group status.  Racism and sexism are sometimes viciously overt but more often they take the form of giving the benefit of the doubt to men and/or to white people, and the burden of the doubt to women and/or people of color.  For instance, when a black woman complains about the way a match is being refereed.  She acts in a similar way to many white men, but they are given the benefit of the doubt while she is given the burden of it.

Our world is filled with uncertainty.  We are constantly deciding whether or not to give people or groups of people the benefit or the burden of the doubt.  But it’s not enough to make these decisions in isolation.  We must look for patterns in how we distribute the weight.

Judgment Above Principle, Judgment After Principle

Principles are really important, and by and large you should try hard to stick to them.  I have tremendous respect for those who have died or gone to jail for their principles.

That said, a principle is just a rule, albeit a highly abstracted and abnormally emotional rule.  And it is important not to follow rules blindly but to consider whether they apply in a given situation.  It is rare that a principle applies in all situations for a given person (how many people truly would never kill, even in self defense?) and it is impossible for a principle to apply in all situations for all people.  So you have to use your personal judgment.

This doesn’t mean “oh, whatever, just go with your gut”.  But it does mean “I have thought deeply about this and weighed the various principles and factors involved and this is what my gut says”.  Hence the title of this post*.  “Judgment Above Principle”: aka personal judgment is more important than sticking to principles.  “Judgment After Principle”: aka personal judgment requires a thoughtful consideration of principles.  It is not a rejection of principles but a transcendence of them.

This post on Emptywheel highlights a great example of putting judgment above principle:

Marcy’s post was not primarily about the investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election, though that is what has gotten a lot of the attention. What she was really talking about was the practice  — or should I say “malpractice”? — of journalism. Woven into the entire post, Marcy laid out how she wrestled with a very basic question: What do you do, as a journalist, when a confidential source lies to you?

I highly recommend reading both Marcy Wheeler’s original post, Putting a Face (Mine) to the Risks Posed by GOP Games on Mueller Investigation, and Peterr’s analysis (linked above).

* The post title is also a play on a paper I was co-author on.  It’s not really relevant to this post, except as a reminder that I’ve been obsessed with morality for a while.  😉