Hanlon’s Razor[1] states “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I usually remember it as “always assume stupidity instead of malice,” a shorter version, easier to remember and quote. Stupidity can be interchanged with misinformation, confusion, fear, ignorance, etc.
Some time ago, during a passionate part of a team meeting, talking about a recent encounter, I quoted this to explain there is no need to think about retribution to actions because there can never be malice. One of my colleagues told me that he didn’t agree with me and pointed out that not following through on responsibilities, laziness, or even actions that are unintended but in the end result in harm should be punished even if not labeled as malicious. Which sounds almost reasonable, but it is not. Searching and finding ways to punish others is misguided and counter intuitive towards the prosperity of a team environment or any communication.
My thoughts on this subject were mostly for encounters with strangers on traffic and public places, work related issues with colleagues and exchanges at home, but as I kept pondering on it more and more I found myself trying to apply this concept to all situations and society in general. I came to the conclusion that it is as applicable to criminal behavior as it is to team communication.
Does anybody ever consider themselves malicious?
We label things as good and bad, good behavior, bad behavior, good people, bad people, but based on whose perspective? Even when guilty without any doubt, do anybody ever identify themselves malicious? Can a human ever act on a malicious idea without reason or confusion?
Byron Katie says “No one would harm another human being unless they were confused. Fear is the cause of all confusion.” and “No one has ever been angry at another human being—we’re only angry at our story of them.”
Dale Carnegie, in his 1936 book How to Win Friends & Influence People, writes about the story of Francis “Two Gun” Crowley. How, after a crime spree which included killing a New York police officer, he wrote a letter addressed “To Whom It May Concern” and said: “Under my coat is a weary heart, but a kind one-one that would do nobody any harm.”
Is there ever a need to be able to identify malice?
If the perpetrator never considers themselves malicious, what good does it do to be able to identify malice and punish it as a malicious act? Looking from this perspective, it becomes clear that the result of any wrongful act should be feedback, education, compassion, and empathy. Yes, rest of the society must be protected from murderers and sexual offenders, but just as it is not productive to handle team disputes with words like punishment, revenge, deterrence, it is also not at, even these types of worst, criminal acts.
Final Thoughts
I see it all around me, myself, my family members, my co-workers, our actions are driven by the story in our heads and the feelings that story generates, rather than facts. Finding ways to change these instinctive behaviors is very hard and Hanlon’s Razor can be a good principle to help accomplish it.
At home and at work, mistakes should be handled with compassion, communication, and feedback. At work, if the person involved doesn’t have the necessary insight to grow with and learn from feedback, and doesn’t have the talent that warrants the effort to build these traits, then that person should be disposed.
To everybody my road ever crossed with; If I ever hurt you, I didn’t mean to, I was either afraid or confused.
Mehmet Tolga Avcioglu 