Developing Intellectual Honesty

Scenario # 1

Lydia is a highly respected mayor who has faithfully served the people of Fropcropulus for 11 years.  During that time she has helped reduce crime, fix potholes, and has granted all the citizens of Fropcropulus the right to take naps during their lunch hour.  Lydia leads the Pro Napping coalition within city politics.

Ned is not nearly as popular as Lydia, but has managed to hold onto a seat of the city council, despite the efforts of Lydia and her supporters to vote him out.  Ned was originally elected based on his support for napping, but in recent years, he has begun to advocate for less sleep, and heads up the anti-napping coalition within city politics.

Recently two separate news stories broke the following scandals:

• Ned was caught napping at his desk.
• Lydia was caught on a hot mic saying that she really doesn’t support napping.

Which of the following conclusions might an intellectually honest person draw, and why?

1. Lydia is justified because she is publicly supporting something that most people like, even if she is opposed to it behind closed doors.  Ned is not justified because he is telling people to do one thing, but is doing something else himself.

2.  Lydia is not justified, because she is publicly supporting one thing, but privately supporting something else.  Ned is however justified because he probably just fell asleep accidentally, and it isn’t his usual behavior.

3.  Neither Lydia nor Ned are justified, because they are both behaving differently in private than they do in public.

4.  Both Lydia and Ned are justified because what they do in their private lives doesn’t matter.  What matters is that they are consistent in their public lives.  

Intellectual honesty isn’t about making a particular judgement call.  It is about applying the same values to all situations, regardless of the circumstances.  Thus, both 3, and 4 can be intellectually honest positions to take.  You may disagree with the positions taken in number 3 or 4, but what matters is that the person making the judgement call applied the same values to both individuals.

Either they are both guilty, or neither of them is guilty.  How we may feel about napping is irrelevant.  If we let the person we agree with off the hook, but we excoriate the person we disagree with, then we are using their “sins” as an excuse to justify our own intolerance towards them.

Our goal must be to judge all persons by the same standards, regardless of whether they belong to our tribe, or to the other tribe.