When Situations like these Arise, how would you Process the Information Given?
Let's look at Example #1.
You are sitting at home, and the Phone Rings. Answering it, you hear the voice of a long time friend, and he says:
"You remember that Jerk I use to work with, "B--", when I was
with XYZ Company? Well, I ran into him at the Club last night.
Long Story Short, I knocked him on his ..."
Suddenly, the Phone goes Dead. You Guess that your friend was on a Cell Phone, and that it was now out of power, or in a Location with Bad Reception. Given what you have been told, has your friend Acted:
- Appropriately, and is Morally Justified for the Act of Violence Committed.
- Has acted Inappropriately, but given the History of Your Friends Relationship with "B--," the Act of Violence was Understandable. This should Mitigate any Punishments that would result from this Act of Violence.
- Irresponsibly, and should be held Legally and Morally Responsible for any and all Consequences.
Such Behavior is in no way Justifiable, either Morally
Given this Situation, what should a Rational Person Conclude? Can you accept what you have been Told as Truthful? How should you proceed?
As so Often happens, the Key to Evaluating any Action, Decision, or Judgment that you are presented with, lies in your ability to step outside the Situation Itself, and View it as a Dispassionate Observer. If you were Listening to this Conversation, and had no Interest in the Outcome, (Personally), you might WONDER ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:
- It seems that the Friend has some Type of ANTAGONISTIC HISTORY with the second individual, but is it LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM? Was it a Conflict that was JUST BETWEEN CO-WORKERS, THAT STAYED ON THE JOB SITE, OR DID IT CROSSOVER INTO THEIR PERSONAL LIVES?
- When you go Through the Brief Description of the INCIDENT given over the Phone BY THE FRIEND, DID YOU NOTICE; That while there was some Type of Physical Altercation, the Friend did not RELATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT FIRST led to the Confrontation, and who was RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIATING THE CONTACT.
- Since the Incident Occurred at a "CLUB," Which usually indicates a business that serves Alcoholic Beverages, how much Influence did possible "Inebriation," or "Diminished Capacity," Play in Causing the Confrontation.?
The Point of the Above Critique, is that Truly Rational and Reasonable Individuals are not going to make IMMEDIATE VALUE JUDGMENTS BASED ON THE WORD OR TESTIMONY OF A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL, (NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE), WITHOUT SEEKING OUT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS AND CAUSES THAT COULD BRING THEM CLOSER TO THE TRUTH.
The PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S A INTELLECTUAL/MENTAL PROCESS THAT IS OFTEN DISREGARDED, WITH PEOPLE REACTING, AND JUDGING THE VALUE AND RELIABILITY OF THE INFORMATION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE:
- BACKGROUND OF THE PERSON
RELAYING THE INFORMATION.
- LACK OF PERSPECTIVE, OR
OBJECTIVITY, THAT IS PART
OF THEIR OWN PERSONALITY.
- THE POSSIBLE MOTIVES OTHERS
MIGHT HAVE TO "FALSIFY" OR "OBSCURE"
While we often see this Type of Situation in our Criminal Justice System, it is also
played out on the CAMPAIGN TRAIL, WITH POTENTIAL VOTERS IGNORING POSSIBLE CREDIBILITY LAPSES, IN WRITTEN OR SPOKEN FORM, BECAUSE THE INFORMATION REINFORCES PRECONCEIVED VALUE JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE SPEAKER/WRITER, OR THE SUBJECT MATTER.
THESE LAPSES MAY NOT BE JUST THE PRODUCT OF THE CANDIDATE, BUT CAMPAIGN WORKERS, SPOKESPEOPLE, AND EVEN THE NEWS MEDIA CAN ALSO PROMOTE DUBIOUS "FACTUAL DATA."
SEE PART 3.
(ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON 6/23/2016)