A rule versus a norm

This example of a kindness, in the implementation of a rule, can be found in Sunstein’s book On Liberalism.

Compare, for example, a mandatory retirement law for people over the age of seventy-five with a law permitting employers to discharge employees who, because of their age, are no longer able to perform their job adequately. If you are an employee, it is especially humiliating and stigmatizing to have employers decide whether you have been rendered incompetent by age. A rule avoids this inquiry altogether, and it might be favored for this reason even if it is both over- and underinclusive. True, it isn’t exactly wonderful to be told that you have to retire because of your age, but if a rule depersonalizes the situation, then it has significant advantages. Or consider a situation in which officials can give out jobs at their discretion, as compared with one in which officials must hire and fire in accordance with rules laid down in advance. In the first system, applicants are in the humiliating position of asking for grace.

So much of the chatter in the public square, often inflammatory, takes only one piece of an event and amplifies its negative consequences. Or portrays the actor in an unnaturally beneficial light. Rarely if ever are the two sides that led to choices aired out in the fashion quoted above. Often the this is intentional, to win over an audience.

But this type of provocation is not kind or right or productive. If one desires the most favorable outcome, a more insightful analysis of the whole picture is desirable.

Perhaps it is when people are keeping their opinions to themselves that an honest sifting through of the alternatives occurs. Mostly norms are in play here, in the quiet light of personal judgements and sacrifice.

Today’s world is ruled by emotional triggers and half-truths. Post a photo of a drama scene and then just tell half the story. It works for a while, but eventual people get wise to it. The truth shines with resilience.