Judging People From Their Actions

[softwareNerd]

We have had a thread discussing how to take into account evasion vs. error when judging people. We have also had a thread discussing generosity/benevolence in making judgements.

I'd like to ask a different question about judging: what is the right way to integrate judgments of the words and actions of a person, into judgements of that person.

For instance, if I meet a person who was dishonest one single time in his entire life, should I judge him to be honest or dishonest? What factors should I consider: frequency of actions, their scale, my purpose in making the judgement, etc.?

Do you have broad categories that you use to classify people? Say, "basically evil", "basically okay", "basically good" ..or any some other such classification?

[TomL]

A person who is dishonest once and honest all other times is not generally dishonest, but one instance does mean that you need to validate what they say more closely than someone who has never lied (yet).

The factor to consider is the context in which the judgement is being made. Is it a business partner? An acquaintence? Someone in a particular web forum? Your brother's friend? Is the person compartmentalized in their thinking?

I generally have multiple categories into which each person may fit depending on context. For example, I consider David Veksler a "master" in the context of web design, but he has given me no reason to seek his advice on tips for motorcycling. Similiarly, I might consider someone "very mature" for his age with respect to expressing his philosophic thoughts, but "completely juvenile" with respect to actually applying those thoughts in concrete situations.

[BurgessLau]

A person who is dishonest once and honest all other times is not generally dishonest, but one instance does mean that you need to validate what they say more closely than someone who has never lied (yet).

Honesty means facing facts of reality. Dishonesty is evasion of facts of reality. Telling truth or lies (falsehoods designed to gain a value) are merely consequences of honesty or dishonesty. So, what is most important in evaluating a person is discoverying his basic relationship to reality. Of course, one way to discover that relationship is to start with the effects (lies, for example) and detect their roots.

For anyone interested in following up on the meaning of "honesty" in the context set by Objectivism, I would suggest starting, as usual, with The Ayn Rand Lexicon -- in this case, the entry for "Honesty," on pp. 204-205.

[softwareNerd]

Thanks for the replies.

I was using honesty as one example. It could be any other attribute. For instance, if someone says something smart, do I judge the person as being smart? Or, if someone says something rude, do I judge the person as being rude?

TomL pointed to frequency of occurence, and I agree. The other thing I can think of is the scope: slightly dishonest vs. very dishonest; or, a brilliant idea vs. a slightly smart idea.

What about the person's background? If two people say something intelligent (or dumb) about a subject, but one is a layperson and the other has many qualifications in the subject, should that make me think differently about their intelligence as a whole?

Remember, I am not trying to judge the content of the particular thought or action, but am trying to judge the actor.

Another possible part of background would be a person's age: do I factor the person's age into the judgement?

What else should one consider when aggregating judgements about actions into judgements about the action?

[DavidOdden]

I'd like to ask a different question about judging: what is the right way to integrate judgments of the words and actions of a person, into judgements of that person.

For instance, if I meet a person who was dishonest one single time in his entire life, should I judge him to be honest or dishonest? What factors should I consider: frequency of actions, their scale, my purpose in making the judgement, etc.?

The important question is not whether a person is "kinda dishonest" or "rather dishonest" or "basically dishonest" or even "absolutely, irremediably dishonest". The question is whether you can possibly integrate whatever that dishonesty is, with the remainder of your value hierarchy. Number of times does not matter at all. Some dishonest acts are so profound that, when they happen, you cannot possibly forgive the person no matter what -- even given just one act. That is a judgment based on what you value. A rough and ready answer is, if you value something a bit, and they are dishonest, you might decide "Nuts with you". If you value someone more, you may tolerate more dishonest, or a more profound dishonesty.

You are right to consider knowledge (age etc) as relevant to moral evaluation. Only an ignorant jackass would permanently morally condemn a 6 year old for telling a lie (the correct action is correction and criticism, followed by forgiveness). Only an ignorant jackass would forgive former President of the US Bill Clinton for his spectacularly dishonest public tergiversations over his adulterous behavior.

[Dominique]

The important question is not whether a person is "kinda dishonest" or "rather dishonest" or "basically dishonest" or even "absolutely, irremediably dishonest". The question is whether you can possibly integrate whatever that dishonesty is, with the remainder of your value hierarchy. Number of times does not matter at all. Some dishonest acts are so profound that, when they happen, you cannot possibly forgive the person no matter what -- even given just one act. That is a judgment based on what you value.

Very good point. I was thinking on this as well and it makes much more sense to work from the angle of the positive (value) rather than the negative (level of transgression)

Only an ignorant jackass would forgive former President of the US Bill Clinton for his spectacularly dishonest publictergiversations over his adulterous behavior.

And the word of the day is tergiversation

1. equivocation, tergiversation -- (falsification by means of vague or ambiguous language)

2. apostasy, tergiversation -- (the act of abandoning a party or cause)

Great word

[Capitalism Forever]

For instance, if I meet a person who was dishonest one single time in his entire life, should I judge him to be honest or dishonest?

The relevant question is: Is this person going to be honest? Remember that the reason you need to judge people is to determine their value to you. If you think the person is always going to be honest in the future, he is a value to you regardless of his past actions.

To predict whether he is going to be honest in the future, you need to consider his relationship to his past dishonesty. Does he regret it? Does he understand why it is bad? Has he resolved not to repeat it in the future? Do his actions demonstrate a commitment to honesty?

[JMeganSnow]

I think CF makes an important point: likelyhood of future transgressions is more important to a current relationship with someone than past transgressions. However, you never can know what someone will do in the future, just like you never can know what someone is thinking, only what he does and what he says.

Past transgressions that display bad premises or, worse, evil ones are extremely valuable in identifying a person's value (and thus in judging them correctly), past transgressions that do not demonstrate someone's fundamental premises or principles are largely useless in this regard.

The more integrated/rational someone is, the more even their smallest actions are based on their fundamental premises; which is why you can eventually just LOOK at someone like a Dagny Taggert or a Hank Rearden and KNOW; this is someone I could trust with my life. You could observe the typical mixed-premises Everyman for MONTHS and not be able to make the same assertion with any amount of certainty.

[softwareNerd]

Thank you all for the answers. Yes, one's reason for making the judgement is an important part of the equation. I also agree with the perspective of looking forward at the person's likely future actions rather than his past ones.

When it comes to honesty or (say) productivity, I find I can start with a person's actions and sometimes a little additional knowledge about the context (or little questioning) can reveal their motives, and help me judge them.

Can dishonesty ever be an "honest mistake"? Except for a really young child doing it for the first few times -- and who is probably imitating -- I cannot think of an example.

What about "irrationality"? Is irrationality ever an honest mistake? How can one tell?

In other words: while dishonesty may be "applied irrationality", can irrationality be judged apart from its manifestation in derivative vices?

Edited April 21, 2005 by softwareNerd

[MisterSwig]

I'd like to ask a different question about judging: what is the right way to integrate judgments of the words and actions of a person, into judgements of that person.

The same way you integrate judgments of your own words and actions: Do they correspond to reality?

If a person's words and actions are consistent with a routine evasion of reality, then I would judge them dishonest to whatever extent they are evading reality. It may take some time for you to determine whether they are actually evading reality or not. You may have to point things out for them to consider and see if they are actually evading these facts or not. But that's generally what I do.

For some people, like Pope Benedict or Billy Graham, who make their living by religiously evading and attacking reality, I don't see any need to investigate whether they are actually dishonest. I take it for granted and leave it to them to prove when they are being honest. But to the extent that someone actually distances themselves from an anti-reality, anti-man ideology, I consider them to be relatively more honest.

For the most part I don't concern myself with "white lies." There are a million different appropriate situations for telling little fibs. These kinds of practically harmless lies generally tell you nothing about the core of an individual. To judge someone morally you really need to understand something about their basic beliefs and attitude toward reality and human life.

[softwareNerd]

For some people, like Pope Benedict or Billy Graham, who make their living by religiously evading and attacking reality, ...  I take it for granted and leave it to them to prove when they are being honest. ....

Excellent illustration, but it raises the question: what could such people possibly say to you to indicate that they are honest? Or, what type of information might you learn about (say) Billy Graham that might indicate that he is not as dishonest as you believed?

[MisterSwig]

Excellent illustration, but it raises the question: what could such people [as Billy Graham and Pope Benedict] possibly say to you to indicate that they are honest?

Billy Graham would have to publicly renounce his faith in the Bible and his entire history of evangelism. (yeah right)

Pope Benedict would have to shoot himself in the head. (doubt it)

[softwareNerd]

Honesty means facing facts of reality. Dishonesty is evasion of facts of reality.

Is honesty the attempt to face reality, or the extent to which one's ideas and actions correspond to reality?

I think it is the former: how hard one tries to find the truth.

However, most of the time, I do not see another person's attempt, but only the end result. Therefore, (in keeping with Mr. Swig's proposal) if someone's ideas and actions are hugely out of whack with reality, I will assume that they are dishonest, unless I see evidence otherwise.

I suppose that one could say that the degree to which a person's ideas and actions do not correspond with reality is not proof of their dishonesty, but a good starting point if you are making a guess at their dishonesty. The smaller the discrepancies with reality, the more would need to "dig deeper" before making a judgement.