Das Jerk

For University of California Philosophy Professor Eric Schwitzgebel, some people's actions concerning the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic earn them the label of "jerk."

I have a theory: Jerks are people who culpably fail to appreciate the intellectual and emotional perspectives of others around them. Let me unpack this a bit.

Jerks fail to appreciate others’ intellectual perspectives. Those who disagree, they see as idiots. They don’t recognize that their preferred opinions might be mistaken. They have no interest in exploring alternative views. Conversation aims at winning, or embarrassing another, or simply announcing the truth they know. Listening with an open mind is for other people.

Fair enough. I suspect that many people know the type and would agree with the good Professor that the label of jerk applies here.

And in the interest of helping readers to stay within their ethical responsibilities to their fellow people, Professor Schwitzgebel offers four guidelines on how not to be a jerk:

• Be open.
• Adhere to rule and custom.
• Be willing to compromise.
• Don’t inflict unusual risks or costs on others without their consent.

So far, so good. But there is also this:

And some perspectives are too foolish or noxious to deserve appreciation—for example, the perspective of a neo-Nazi. Sympathetically understanding Richard Spencer’s politics is optional.

Sigh. And it all looked so promising...

Not that I'm of the opinion that neo-Nazis are great people. But the carve out, that intentionally failing to appreciate the intellectual and emotional perspectives of another person ceases to be culpable when that other person is bad, opens a yawning chasm of a loophole in Professor Schwitzgebel's theory of jerks, and as is common with Nazi comparisons, nothing is done to close it.

It is, generally speaking, a given that neo-Nazis are foolish and/or noxious in the extreme. That's why they're so commonly held up as the example of How Not To Be A Good Person. But they aren't the only foolish or noxious people in the world.

Professor Schwitzgebel makes the point that:

If someone thinks—however falsely, in your opinion—that your breathing maskless puts their life at risk, you can pull up your mask out of politeness and in acknowledgement that you might be wrong.

But what if I consider that opinion to be so false that it lands squarely in the category of foolish? Am I then entitled to blow them off without being culpable? I mean, if I decide that someone is just being unintelligent or is secretly a control freak who enjoys bossing others around, aren't recognizing that my opinion may be wrong or listening with an open mind optional?

My point here isn't to make a slippery slope argument that one starts with being rude to Nazis, and the next thing one knows, they're rude to any and everyone. It's that no-one understands themselves to be a jerk, and the loophole explains why. When people refuse to be open, adhere to rules and customs, enter into compromises or avoid saddling others with unusual risks or costs. they do so secure in the understanding that they're on the right side of things.

What makes someone a jerk is the subjective determination that the people they were being jerks to shouldn't have been lumped in with the foolish or noxious. But when those aren't objective determinations, whose opinion holds sway? Using Nazis as the point of comparison doesn't answer that question. It simply avoids the conflict. But if there is going to be an understanding that certain people don't warrant the respect that others are due, the understanding of how to draw that line needs to be shared. And therefore it needs to be discussed. And references to Nazis, either neo- or original, are seldom conversation starters.