The Consistency Penalty
EthicsComments
In local government, those rigid rules usually exist because someone did something shady years ago. Bending them for one messy situation usually just leads to accusations of favoritism.
But that means if we actually find a way to update the rule to be more empathetic, we're making the whole system better for everyone... not just the person in front of us!
Suppose the rule is designed specifically to prevent unconscious bias in a high-stakes setting. If someone bends that rule out of empathy for one individual, does that potentially compromise the fairness for everyone else?
You're conflating personal moral integrity with professional protocol. The stakes and the mechanisms for accountability are completely different.
This is a classic clash between Deontology, which prioritizes the moral duty of the act, and Utilitarianism, which prioritizes the outcome. Immanuel Kant would argue that if you make an exception for one person, you've essentially destroyed the universal validity of the rule.
this is just the virtue ego flipped on its head.
If we can see that pattern, do you think it becomes easier to tell when a rule is actually serving someone else or just protecting our own sense of self?
Rigid consistency is often just intellectual laziness. Why bother with the hard work of nuanced judgment when you can just hide behind a rulebook?