As someone who studies history and has an interest in science, I am perhaps more aware than most people of the importance of objectivity. But objectivity is important in every area of life, whether it is making decisions about our own future or giving advice to friends. We are often advised (and I myself often advise others) to "try to be objective" in passing judgment on things. However, is it actually possible to be objective? If not, should we even bother to try to be objective? If we want to be as objective as humanly possible, are emotions like empathy desirable or not?
To answer the first question, it is not possible to be entirely objective about anything. It is not even possible to perceive the objective reality of any one thing, even assuming there is such a thing as objective reality in the first place. I personally (speaking subjectively) do not doubt the existence of an objective reality, at least in a sense, but as pointed out by Einstein and others, certain aspects of reality are relative, and so it is impossible to make an objective statement about them. To take an example, an astronomy textbook may tell you that certain stars are moving away from us while others are moving towards us. But why not say we (here meaning our solar system) are moving away from or towards them? Presumably it is some of both, but how much of each? That question cannot be answered objectively, as the answer is always relative depending on the point of reference taken (for instance, the galactic center). So while the existence of the stars and the fact that they are moving can be said to be objective reality, when it comes to the details of their motion, it can be argued that there is no true objective reality.
If we leave questions of relativity aside and look at individual objects, can we arrive at an objective understanding of the objects in question? Let's say we look at an apple. We can start by agreeing that the apple itself has an objective reality. But can we fully perceive that objective reality? The answer to that is no. Some might argue that it is obvious that the apple is red, and has such and such a shape. But while we may perceive it as red, would someone who is colorblind perceive it the same way? Ah, the counter-argument goes, but that because their perception is defective, so they are unable to see the objective reality. But is our own perception perfect? Speaking simply of color, we would perceive the same apple as having different colors depending on the light under which it was viewed. If we saw it under a red light, it would look quite different from the way it would under a blue light. So which is the way it really looks? Even if we view it under a white light, we are still not perceiving the complete reality of its appearance, as out of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, we only are able to see a narrow group of wavelengths commonly known as "visible light". What would the apple look like under ultraviolet or infrared light, not to mention the X-ray or radio parts of the spectrum? In many parts of the spectrum it might not be visible at all (as it would not reflect any significant amount of radiation in those wavelengths), but in any case our eyes are incapable of seeing its appearance (or non-appearance) in anything other than visible light. Certainly we now are able to take pictures of objects at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum; astronomers do this all the time using X-ray telescopes, radio telescopes, and so on. But even then, for us to actually look at the results, the image has to be converted (translated, in a sense) into one in the wavelengths of visible light in order for us to actually look at it, so we are no longer seeing the actual reality, just an approximation. So we can never fully perceive all aspects of the objective reality of any object. The best we can do is, by studying it in as many ways as we can, come as close as possible to a complete objective understanding (an important point that I will return to below).
Obviously, if it is impossible to objectively describe an object (even leaving aside the philosophical objection that words are already imperfect representations of the realities they are used to describe), it is likewise impossible to describe human events and interactions objectively, and even harder to come close to doing so. For history, this is especially difficult. We might accept as an objective fact the statement that Hannibal invaded Italy in 218 BCE, or that Alexander of Macedon died in Babylon in 323 BCE, since we have multiple sources that agree on this much. But when it comes down to details, like the route followed by Hannibal or the way Alexander died, there is no way to be certain of the objective facts. Did Alexander die in great pain or relatively peacefully? What were his last words? What caused the fever which killed him? Our knowledge of these events comes from people who were not actually present at the time, so we obviously cannot be certain of the accuracy of their accounts. Indeed, much of history is based on second- or third- or even fourth-hand information, with all the problems of inaccurate transmission that entails. But even if we have first-hand accounts of event, does that mean we can know objectively what happened? If you and another person both witness an event or take part in a conversation and are later asked to recount it, will the two of you agree on every detail? Often you won't, because each person will perceive, fail to perceive, or misperceive different details, even assuming both peoples' memories of what happened are clear, which is often not the case. Perhaps if the event in question was recorded we can come closer to an objective understanding of it, but even if both video and audio exist, a perfect knowledge of the objective facts is still not guaranteed, as no visual recording will show every possible angle (think for instance of slow-motion replays in sports; they can often clarify things, but other times a poor camera angle means they still leave a lot of uncertainty).
When motivations also have to be considered, an objective understanding becomes even more remote. Why did this person take a certain action? How did that person feel at such and such a time? Though in some senses John Donne was correct to say that no man is an island, in other ways every human being is an island, as we can never truly understand the feelings and perceptions of another. Only the person in question knows their motivations and feelings, if anyone does. In fact, even if a person attempts to tell others what they felt at a certain time or what motivated them to act a certain way, there is no guarantee that we can thereby know the truth. Even if the person is doing their best to be perfectly honest in recounting their feelings, they are simply telling us what they remember feeling. We cannot be sure that this memory is entirely accurate, or that they are able to convey it clearly. So it isn't really possible to be sure exactly why anyone does anything.
Even if we know the facts as well as it is possible to know them, can we then judge them objectively if we are asked to about the rights and wrongs of a matter, or even for our advice as to how to deal with it? Again, the answer is no. Our view of things is inevitably influenced by our subjective views of what is right and wrong and our knowledge of what actions are effective in particular situations. If a friend asks you for advice on how to deal with a difficult boss, even if you get all the information it is possible to get about the problem and the motivations of your friend and their boss, your advice will still be affected by your knowledge, your personal experiences, and your view of what is acceptable or preferable and what isn't. Of course you can make your advice as objective as possible by getting as many facts as you can and trying your best to exclude any prejudices on your own part, but complete objectivity is not possible. Likewise, while I would argue (and indeed have in other essays) that many basic moral and ethical principles can be arrived at through a rational (and therefore mostly objective) thought process, there will always be certain assumptions at the root of them (for instance, that our individual happiness is a good thing) even if we try to limit them as much as possible, and, more to the point, there will always be a large amount of subjectivity in the application of these principles, even if they were arrived at (mostly) objectively.
Let's look at what this all means for a topic of some contemporary interest, namely whether a judge can make an objective ruling in a court case, and if not, what approach they should take. From what has been said above, it should be clear that no judge can ever be completely objective. A judge (Antoin Scalia, for instance) may claim to be objective in his rulings; he may even truly believe he is objective, but, if so, he is kidding himself. Even if he has a through knowledge of the law and the facts of the case and is able to come up with very sound, logical arguments for his opinion on the application of the law, there will always be an element of subjectivity present. It is generally agreed that rule of law (meaning that people are judged based on the law) is superior to rule of man (meaning that the judge himself or herself can judge a person who comes before the court however they feel like judging them). I would not dispute this, as if judges could be completely arbitrary even the last shreds of objectivity would go out the window. But it is worth remembering when we talk about rule of law that not only are the laws made by men and women with all their subjective prejudices and preconceived notions, but they are also interpreted and applied by men and women, and like all humans, they can never be completely objective.
Since we are talking about principles of law, we should also mention the oft-seen tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. In some ways it might seem that holding to the letter of the law is actually the more objective approach. But, even leaving aside the fact the laws are written by people and are therefore imperfect, no law can cover every possible situation. Furthermore, it is worth asking what the purpose of having laws is in the first place. The answer, ideally at least, is to create a just society. And what is justice? Essentially in a legal situation it means those who deserve punishment are punished appropriately and those who don't deserve punishment are not punished. Of course whether a punishment is "deserved" or not is also a subjective opinion, but leaving that aside for now, if justice is the goal then it is clear that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, since following the letter of a law which does not cover a situation adequately may result in injustice.
So how can we make judgments according to the spirit of the law, given that this is an amorphous thing which is even more difficult to identify objectively than the letter of the law? Of course we have already said that perfectly objective judgments are not possible; nevertheless, we can attempt to come as close as possible. This is where empathy -- more specifically trying to understand the feelings and motivations of others -- comes in. Some will object that I've already said that it is impossible to really understand others' thoughts and emotions. Indeed it is, but that doesn't mean we can't attempt to have an approximate understanding of them, just as we can gain an approximate understanding of the appearance of an object at electromagnetic wavelengths invisible to us. To do that, we need to be able to emphasize with others as much as possible. Only if we are capable of imagining ourselves in a situation faced by another person can we come close to understanding their motivations. To be sure, understanding does not mean condoning; we might understand why a person under stress might lash out violently at a family member, but that doesn't mean we should excuse such behavior. However, if we want to make a just decision, understanding is essential, and we can't have understanding where human beings are concerned without at least some capacity for empathy.
I should stress that when I say that it is necessary for a judge (or anyone with the power to make a ruling on some issue) to be able to empathize with those involved I don't just mean that they have to be able to empathize with the poor and disadvantaged. In order to be as objective as possible, they also have to be able to empathize with the rich and powerful. While most of us might find it difficult to empathize, say, with a government official who accepts a bribe, with a sufficient effort we may be able to do so. We may still conclude that they deserve punishment, but again it would be impossible to make a fair and just judgment in the matter without attempting to see things from their perspective. Nevertheless, if justice is the goal, it could be argued that the ability to emphasize with the disadvantaged is more important, as things are already weighted against them. Or to put it another way, those in authority for the most part are already able to empathize more easily with those with similar backgrounds (assuming they are capable of empathy at all); what they are more likely to be lacking in is the ability to empathize with those who are not so well off. Of course people find it easier to empathize with those like them; that is why a wide variety of life experiences are helpful, or, lacking that, an adequate understanding of the widely different situations people may face and sufficient imagination to put ourselves in such situations.
To conclude, while I recognize that complete objectivity is an unobtainable goal, the best way to come close to it is by obtaining as complete an understanding as possible, and if we are dealing with human actions, that means we need to be able to empathize with others, to put ourselves in their shoes, as the saying goes. We also have to do our best to rid ourselves of, or at least temporarily put aside, our own biases and preconceived notions. Only then can we make judgments or offer advice or opinions that, if not actually objective, are as objective as it is possible for them to be.
All of this is, to some extent, a roundabout way of saying that I do my best to be as objective as possible in anything I write (unless I'm being ironic), but at the same time I recognize that I can never completely succeed. I hope that I can succeed at least partially, and I welcome comments and opinions from others who are willing to make the same effort. Also, when I write about history, science or other topics, I will treat various things as facts, but with the caveat (not always stated) that, as explained above, it's very difficult to be truly certain what is a fact and what isn't. All I can say is that certain things seem to be facts based on my understanding, incomplete though it may be. Again, I welcome corrections from those who have some relatively objective basis for their alternate version of the facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment