Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? Chapter 1, Bias.

Forward to Chapter 2: Cause and Effect >>

Two cups of ice cream: one vanilla, one chocolate. This delicious ice cream is in front of two hungry men, and the men are hot and sweating. Even though they’ve never had ice cream, they can practically taste that dripping ice cream hitting their dry parched mouths. For our discussion, these two men are theoretical equals. They draw straws, one man getting the vanilla ice cream, and the other man getting the chocolate ice cream. Both men devour that ice cream, lovingly lapping up every single drop of their respective flavors.

The next day, the two men are hot again, and, so again, they are offered the ice cream: one cup of vanilla ice cream and one cup of chocolate ice cream. However, we now know that these two men are no longer equals. They cannot be. They’ve had different experiences. Sure, the men share the attribute of both being men, and, yes, both men share the attribute of both having eaten ice cream, but, now, the men are unique in that each man has experienced eating a different flavor of ice cream. This experience will affect their respective judgment, because that new experience provides a new frame of reference.

But no drawing straws next time. Now, each man needs to make a decision regarding those cups of cold, delicious, ice cream; that is, each man needs to make a choice by judgment. As it is, each man may choose the flavor of ice cream he had yesterday, being respectively content with the flavor of ice cream each man knows by experience. Or, each man may choose the other flavor of ice cream, concluding to try something new, at the risk of foregoing the known experience. Or, both men may desire the vanilla ice cream, or both men may desire the chocolate ice cream—that is, one man may prefer the known experience and the other man may prefer the unknown experience, thereby both competing for the same flavor. In the last situation, the men may argue, with one saying, “I want the vanilla, because I know it,” and the other man, with the opposite preference, retorting, “That’s my point.

Men are not women, by definition. Perhaps new technology supports a blur to the social lines more than ever before in history, but the attribute of chromosomes remains the bright line of distinction, at least from a least-common-denominator scientific perspective. There may be a larger woman who feels like the statistically common man, or a smaller man who feels like the statistically common woman, but the general rule of chromosomic distinction yet remains. Of course, the definition of things set forth by law is not bound to the reality of science, as the law (or its relevant society) chooses the attribute, or tier of taxonomy, by which distinctions are made for such purposes, developed in accordance with the articles of association for the members of the social group.

Different groups have different experiences, and it’s no one’s fault. One of my female friends once commented that she would only see male gynecologists, because men, not having female genitalia, are more gentle. I mentioned this fact to another female friend, who said she would only see female gynecologists, saying “that’s my point, men don’t have female genitalia!” If I were looking for a gynecologist, I might become confused or disheartened, but, alas, I am a man. I simply do not know what it is like to be a woman. Not only have I never experienced being a woman while in a group, but also, I have never experienced being a woman while all alone.

Experience can be important, it tends to support a non-theoretical, non-academic, common sense, if not perhaps a life-empathy. We remember our social commentary by the great Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist (suggesting the experience of many husbands); to wit, when Mr. Bumble was being accused as legally responsible for the acts of his wife…

“‘Mr. Bumble, the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction,’ said Mr. Brownlow.

“‘If the law supposes that,’ said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, ‘the law is a ass — a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.’”

No man (bachelor or husband) that I have experienced has any experience with having a baby suckle from his own nipple, monthly menstrual cycles, bearing a child within his body for 9 months (give or take), having a vagina, or any of the burdens, pressures or joys of those things. It is simply a different experience for a man. I once heard someone say that, after sexual intercourse, a man can take a shower and wash it all off, but not so easy for a woman.

But, here’s the trick of it: Having an experience might not make someone the better for it, or the wiser for it. I have quipped to many a person that a doctor need not break a leg to know how to fix it. Breaking a leg might make the doctor more empathetic, but that is a distinct issue, separate from the necessary corrective skill or action. Indeed, the great prize-fighter trainer, Angelo Dundee, might have been knocked out at the first punch, if he actually went into the ring, himself. We simply do not know if someone who has endured an experience may become jaded by it or sensitized to it, such as an ex-smoker may be the best person or the worst person to consult with a smoker who is trying to quit. Personal experience may make someone more gentle for it, or less gentle for it.

There is a famous Aesop’s Fable, A Fox without a Tail. Aesop teaches that the injured fox, who lost his tail by a trap, tries to get all the other foxes to cut off their tails (with some misery-loves-company causation). This is, “Everyone does it; therefore, it must be rightex post facto righteousness, trying to claim a thing is right after-the-fact, by the weight of mass approval, or even better, by mass imitation. History proves it beyond the necessity for further comment that the masses are wrong about a lot of things. In any case, men don’t terminate zygote gestation, and, whether a woman who terminated zygote gestation is more or less credible to speak for that experience is a consideration of broad context.

Every judge has some form of experiential conditioning. It is a pandering sound-bite to suggest that judges are or should be perfect cookie-cutter legal robots, pure, perfect, and devoid of any personal experience or frame of reference. Yes, experience may make a judge more gentle or less gentle—and we can compare the leadership during Reign of Terror and the retributional killings to Abraham Lincoln’s leadership during the U.S. Civil War and the respectful processions at Appomattox.

As a general rule, experienced judicial litigators will confirm that the same facts presented to different judges may yield different results, and not necessarily because one judge was right and another wrong. But, that said, experience includes Plessy v. Ferguson where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans must effectively “go to the back of the bus,” in interpreting the U.S. Constitution, from a bias. And, we can observe the cause and results of the U.S. Civil War Andersonville Trial and WWII Nuremburg Trial where experience from a bias to desired results affected judgments.

Therefore, bias by experience affects everyone; it does not necessarily descend to a prejudice, but it is a natural human tendency and condition. Even dogs that are kicked as pups will cower for the rest of their lives. People of certain faith will be biased to the principles of that faith, people who are women will be biased for that experience, people who are men will be biased for that experience, people who have endured terminating zygote gestation will be biased by that experience. There is simply no way around bias, deep and personal bias. A judge who is former teacher, and a judge who is a former police officer, and a judge who is a former bank executive, will tend to frame the world by his or her respective experience. And, each person, judging to make a political vote is similarly biased by experience or lack thereof.

The issue is not to eliminate a fact that will not, and perhaps should not, go away. Every person is unique for who he or she is by education and experience. Like the existence of sibling rivalry, the issue is to understand that it exists; not dysfunctionally to deny it, but, rather, to admit it and to work with it. A formed judgment that is correct (by any measure) without an understanding and control of bias, is simply getting lucky. There is no sound judgment, statistical assessment of probability, or act of wisdom that does not understand the inclination to bias. And, we cannot control what we do not see.

A beautiful—if not sublime—implied manifestation of this acknowledgment occurs in the Preface to the New Testament in the New American Bible, which demonstrates a cerebral respect for diverse views of thinking; to wit:

In all these areas, the present translation attempts to display a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the questions under discussion, which are not yet resolved and in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.

We start at the beginning, understanding our own minds, experiences and tendencies. To deny bias is dysfunction, and that unseen dysfunction will manipulate us and cloud what should be clarity of wise decision-making. It is not easy to admit it, but we need to see the beam of bias in ourselves, as much we we desire to see the twig of it in others. To know bias is to control it, to conquer it, and to see it for the villain that it is. Like a forgiveness, it takes strength, because it fights against the gravity of human tendency. Abraham Lincoln controlled and ascended from the gravity of his biases, as did Justice John Harlan in his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson. In addressing the slave-as-property decision of Dred Scott, Lincoln said:

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and Judge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope, upon the chances of being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself.

He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independence includes ALL men, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! He will have it that they cannot be consistent else.

Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.

Abraham Lincoln, Speaking against the U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott Decision, June 26, 1857.

Socrates said, “I only know that I know not,” conquering his ignorance by acknowledging it. He saw the beam in his eye that exposed his tendency to the bias of his self-righteousness.

Within the scope of decision-making, we should make a similar acknowledgment; to wit: “The very truth that I desire to prove is thereby the greatest suspect for my lie.

There is a school of purported thought that asserts, as a citizen of the United States, “I am entitled to be a biased emotional fanatic, without control by rational logic. That is my right as an American!” Perhaps. And, with such a statement, the proponent is likely to permit or endorse all sorts of activities to the detriment of other non-human animals, whether or not in embryonic condition. That is, discrimination by principle on the basis that human beings are different than other animals. This deep appreciation for the unique speciality of human beings, such as the proponent is a human being, is certainly biased as such, and made contrary to the fact that the distinguishing attribute of human beings is the ability to think, to perform logic and to become wise, rather than to emote.

As much as we may love or desire it to be otherwise, it is not love and our feelings that make us unique as human beings. Many animals love and feel, so that simply cannot be the unique attribute of humanity. I have personally experienced dogs loving and feeling, but I have never experienced a dog acting with ascendant wisdom. Emoting has its rightful place, but, without the direction, control and temper of wisdom, we are just like dogs, and often worse, being ill-tempered dogs.

Thinking, logic and wisdom is the seat of contemplation, self-reflection, respect for diverse opinions, and certainly the cognizance and management of personal bias.

There will never be a socially perfect answer to a dynamic complex question that traverses philosophy, spirituality, religion and social practicality in a free-thinking society of people with different experiences. The best we can ever do is to try our best, with mutual respect, to implement a thoughtful balanced policy, consistent with the consented-to articles of our group association, that has a sensitivity appropriate to the present state of the question in regard to which it is impossible to please everyone, since intelligent and sincere participants in the debate hold mutually contradictory views.

As for my dog, contrary to a wise consideration, he will continue to love lapping up a nice bowl of chocolate ice cream, even if it kills him.

Forward to Chapter 2: Cause and Effect >>

______________________________________

See also:

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice: Chapter 2, Cause and Effect

The Insecure Human Being – The Business of Aesop™ No. 51 – A Fox Without a Tail

All Men Are Not Created Equal, or Why Thomas Jefferson Got it Wrong – Stand for America®

The Great Masquerade – Stand for America®

John Stuart Mill – Leadership is Thinking Independently

John Stuart Mill – Leadership and Being Unique from the Crowd

WHO AM I TO JUDGE?; Or, Social Media and Social Death by the Four Horsemen of the Social Justice Apocalypse

______________________________________

See The Business of Aesop™ article series index.

The opinions and beliefs set forth in this article are solely the author’s and are not endorsed, condoned or supported by any affiliation of the author.

© 2019 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pro-life-pro-choice-chapter-1-bias-gregg-zegarelli-esq-

See Article Index

Forward to Chapter 2: Cause and Effect >>