One of the clearest examples of exploiting moral wiggle room, the subject of the previous post, is the pervasiveness of support for obviously mistaken public assertions of political activists, by fellow travelers, for instrumental reasons. Norm points out a recent example - something he has done numerous times over a long period of time. In this case it's another wheezing attempt to obfuscate terrorism that Norm outs for moral (and I'd add intellectual) turpitude. Since the connection between choices and outcomes isn't perfectly clear, fairness is no longer as compelling a consideration for some as advancing their political agenda.

Roger Pielke Jr. notes another example of such behavior that is closer to my core concerns.

For me the most amazing aspect of the repeated misrepresentation of science related to disasters and climate change is not that political advocates look to cherry pick science or go beyond the state of the science. What is most amazing is that in the face of incontrovertible and repeated misrepresentation that the overwhelming majority of scientists, the media, and responsible advocacy groups have remained mute (with a few notable exceptions such as Hans von Storch).

More than anything else, even the misrepresentations themselves, the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming. If climate scientists ever wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion among some people in society, they need look no further in their willingness to compromise their own intellectual standards in policy debate on the issue of disasters and climate change.

This also bears on my concerns about expertise, elitism and authoritarianism. It seems to me that you must have your head in the sand to give credence to the public positions of any of them. When they are not consciously deceiving the public for instrumental reasons, they are deceiving themselves in an attempt to maintain some sort of moral or intellectual equilibrium by avoiding contrary information. As we all do. We can admire some for their victories over past failings, rising above their weaknesses, but we would be foolish to forget that the battle goes on and that current issues are unresolved.

When we add the consequences of human exploitation of moral wiggle room to other group pathologies - information cascades, group consciousness, sunk-cost fallacies, SNAFU principle, the knowledge problem, etc. - it becomes clearer why it is so important for decision making groups to have heuristic diversity. It reduces the negative effects of all of these mental errors. It makes it easier for individuals to live up to their own stated intellectual, ethical and aesthetic principles. It may not be as comfortable, but it is more effective.