Photo by Steve Johnson on Unsplash cropped to 1200x630 pixels.
The Black and the White
There is an ubiquitous saying, “Not everything is black and white”. Generally, this quote is used when referring to moral dilemmas that are unjustifiably assumed to be simple. To grasp the point further, consider the following moral question.
Is lying morally good or morally bad?
Needless to say, the answer is, “it depends”. If you are not convinced then consider the following example.
Axiom (Axiom 1)
If an act saves at least one person who is innocent then it is morally good.
Axiom (Axiom 2)
If an act leads to the demise of at least one innocent person and the actor had foreknowledge that the decision could lead to their demise then it is morally bad.
Example
Suppose you are living in a society where a particular political party has retained full control of the country, inducing a dictatorship. The heinous despot believes a certain racial group should be annihilated with absolutely no rational basis. Your neighbor and their family, who are innocent individuals, are classified under the target racial group. Because of their innocence, you decide to hide them from the government. However, one day a group of officers representing the fascist government attempts to question you as you are their neighbor. Knowing that if you are truthful to the officers, the family will surely die, you lie convincingly such that it aroses no suspicion and the family is saved.
Explanation
If lying is morally bad, then the act you did was bad. However, since the act saved at least one innocent person then it is good (Axiom 1). This is a contradiction. Then either Axiom 1 is wrong or the statement lying is morally bad is wrong. I presume no sensible individual would conclude that Axiom 1 is wrong, hence concluding that lying is not necessarily bad for we have found an instance where lying is good. The argument follows the same line of reasoning if one holds telling the truth is morally good by using Axiom 2.
The Point
Concluding that “lying is bad” is an over-simplification, which is what the quote “not all things are black and white” seeks to address. Although one can argue this binary cut is “simplistic”, it is not purely the matter of the dichotomy per se, but rather unreasonable forcing it on blanket statements.
Remark
Simplicity is not necessarily bad. There is beauty in simplicity, but it becomes grotesque when it becomes an over-simplification.
Before venturing further it would be essential to define what over-simplifcation means in this context,
Definition
Over-simplification: simplifying to the point of neglecting nuances that are critical to understanding.
The point behind the moral discussion is to show that too much simplification can lead one to hold contradictory beliefs. In the previous example, if one held the position that lying is not necessarily morally bad, then one can act consistently with their beliefs. It becomes problematic when a position is taken for granted without rigorous analysis; one may end up holding a position that they do not actually agree with.
If something you believe induces a contradiction, should you continue to believe it?
Assumptions
Underlying the needless simplicity are assumptions—what is taken for granted or accepted as true. I presume that the vast majority of oversimplifications are a direct result of assuming something to be true when it is actually not or in the case of the morality example, it is condtional on the situation. Returning to the morality example, if one responded with lying is morally bad then one is assuming that there are no instances where lying can be good. Clearly, it is an unreasonable belief to hold.
Extensions
To help extend the underlying point behind assumptions, consider this thought.
Particular political affiliations may cause one to presume that one is for X and thus against Y (supposing Y is in contradiction to X), despite the individual’s aligment with that political group is on an entirely different issue and that one does not care for the X and Y.
These mental shortcuts or simplifications can delude us into making wrong conclusions. Some may say that on average an individual identified as A would believe X, but that may not be the best model; for there may be numerous other features about that individual that may increase or decrease the likelihood of believing X. In other words, averaging can abstract away crucial information. Another argument may be that X is the defining characteristic of A. But who determines whether it is the defining characteristic? Even so, one may choose to align with that A because it aligns with another issue that one holds preeminence. In other words, the value systems differ from individual to individual and ultimately, people align with what they value most, which may not be the set of agreed upon values that are the hallmark for A.
Frameworks
A natural progression from individual thoughts are frameworks. We built frameworks to help us make sense of the world. However underlying these systems of thought is the belief that what we have observed or understood is true. For example, there there are different lines of thought in statistics, bayesian and frequentist. These separate philosophies are frameworks with fundamental differences in what is assumed to be true. Because of these differences, conflict becomes nearly inevitable. Hence, the infamous bayesian vs frequentist war occurred. Other fields such as economics (keynesian vs. austrian vs. monetarist vs …) are not immune to this phenomenon.
Do not be mistakenly believe that frameworks are “bad”. In fact, that conclusion would be antithetical to the point of this writing. By a priori, frameworks can be good if the underlying assumptions are at most true, meaning that there is not sufficent evidence to conclude it to be false. But, when our assumptions are demostratively false, it becomes problematic.
Remark
For the inquisitive, it is necessary to presume truth for how can we make sense of the world if there is not an assumption of truth?
Priming
Frameworks and assumptions are an unavoidable consequence of perception. Hence, making one liable to priming. Priming involves invoking a framework or an individual thought from some stimulus. Highlighting the conclusion of the political example, one’s frameworks and assumptions may decieve one into believing something to be true when it is not. This is a consequence of failing to acknowledge particular nuances that are critical to an accurate representation—an over-simplification.
Consequences
What is the point of knowing if it is not acted upon?
One would easily reason through the consequences of over-simplifications, but reasoning is not enough; there must be action. However, because over-simplifications are a result of assuming truth, it is difficult to have self-awareness of it. One recommendation would be to insert an initial inquistive framework at the time of priming. This may decrease the likelihood of assuming the wrong framework since it allows for more information to be passed.
Regardless of the mechanism employed to combat over-simplifications, I hope we are at least aware that all of us are susceptible to it.