If I count correctly, I have blogged about at least 12 ways in which our psychological or mental biases can lead us to violate other people’s rights:
- spurious reasoning justifying our actions to ourselves post hoc
- the role distance plays in our regard for fellow human beings
- the notion that what comes first is also best
- a preference for the status quo
- the anchoring effect
- last place aversion
- learned helplessness
- the just world fallacy
- adaptive preferences
- the bystander effect
- inattentional blindness, and
- stereotype threat
So it may come as a surprise that rationality – in the sense of the absence of biases that distort our proper thinking – can also cause rights violations. But when you think about it, it’s just plain obvious: whatever the irrational basis of Nazi anti-Semitism, the Holocaust was an example of rational planning; many people argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki made perfect military sense; and others say the same about torture in the ticking bomb scenario.
However, the point is not just that rationality can be harmful, but that biases can be helpful. For example:
Take crime. The rational person weighs the benefit of mugging someone – the financial reward and the buzz of the violence netted off against the feeling of guilt afterwards – against the cost; the probability of being caught multiplied by the punishment.
But we don’t really want people to think so rationally because it would lead them to actually mug someone occasionally. It would be better if they had the heuristic “don’t mug people.” Such a heuristic is, however, irrational in the narrow economistic sense, as it would cause people to reject occasionally profitable actions. (source)
Given the low probability of getting caught for any crime, we would encourage crime if we would favor rationality over bias. If, on the other hand we could adopt a bias that people like us are highly likely to get caught (or, for that matter, another bias, such as the one that rich people deserve their wealth), then crime would go down.
All this is related to the question of whether false beliefs are useful for human rights.
More posts in this series are here.