The problem with sincerity

Many arguments and defences of the indefensible rely on a form of appeal to sincerity. It happens all the time, and for some reason, seems to get a free pass - when rationally, it’s not a great argument. It goes like this: “we must overlook the thing a person said or did, because they really believed it”.

It’s a pernicious argument because the vast majority of people believe that some form of sincerity is important, at some level - and so it carries unearned weight. We value sincerity because the alternative is unthinkable: we could have no human relationships if we did not value sincerity.

In the Trump regime’s final pardons, a number were excused their misdemenours because they were ‘people of faith’. We could discuss briefly whether that ought actually to cement their conviction more firmly perhaps. But the argument “he/she is a person of faith” is so routinely trotted out as a defence that familiarity has bred acceptance, where it might better breed contempt. Why don’t we hold people of faith to a higher standard - given that routinely they proclaim to hold themselves to such, and are often very happy to make public statements about the unbelievers’ amorality? We are asked to excuse them because they have some form of sincerity, exactly as they have demonstrated an absence of it.

And then we have this morning, Amanda Chase, extreme right-wing (proto-fascist) Republican who is reported in Salon

Chase said the would-be insurrectionists who overran the Capitol while play-acting a ludicrous violent fantasy were actually concerned about "losing our Republic."

While this defence will offend many people, it is worth noting what is really wrong with it. Because fundamentally, she is absolutely right. The insurrectionists (nothing ‘would be’ about them) really did believe what she says they believe. Their concerns were ‘genuine’. That doesn’t though mean they were valid. And it really does not excuse them. Thankfully the law, in it’s purest forms (ie not as actually enacted unfortunately) would agree. Beleive what you like; actions are actions - and we are culpuable irrespective of our belief.

In the old English law of Tort, a similar concept is recognised: ‘The Tortfeasor takes their victim as they find him’. ie if I commit a bad act, then I am responsible for the consequences, even though I might not have been able to forsee them. It is a far reaching idea.

So now my reaction of revulsion is a judgement on their ‘deeply held’ beliefs. Is that OK? Does the fact that they hold these beliefs deeply, innoculate them from their consequent actions? For this is what Ms Chase is demanding.

To quote the wonderful Jen McCreight (of Boobquake fame): no. Intent is not magic. That we do not intend to do bad things, does not excuse us when we do in fact, commit bad acts. Murdering people as you try to overthrow a relatively democractic election for example, Ms Chase, is definitely a bad act. The fact that you have been persuaded that the election is not in fact fair, is a matter that needs judgement. Are you a fool? Are you a child that has failed to grow up and distinguish between the things I want to be true, and the things that are in fact true? Are you some kind of delinquent who can be so easily manipulated by power-hungry actors? Are you a power hungry actor? Does it just feel good to be a victim and believe you are on a just crusade against terrible oppression? Are you so ill-educated that you conflate fact with belief?

In the minds of those involved, they truly believe I am sure, that they were fighting tyranny.

But that’s just not good enough. Their delusion resulted in unnecessary deaths, and exposed a cancer deep in the American psyche. It is a cancer that the British right wing is desperate to infect us with too, of course. A sense of aggrieved entitlement which can be manipulated to perform truly bad acts. And this particular act aimed to disenfranchise the votes of 81 millions Americans - without any regard for their rights

So I look at those who delude themselves and make a judgement: not good enough. And the whining about how they are not respected can just up and go now. If you have to demand respect, you’ve lost already. We earn our respect. And if you really think that a defense of ‘they really believed it’ is good enough, you need to expand your mind a little, and spot all of the many moments where you would instinctively and hypocritically reject such a terribly bad argument.