I’m reading the new biography of Derek Parfit at the moment. It contains an interesting anecdote. When he watched a movie that seemed to show Hitler doing a little jig after the conquest of Paris by the Nazis, Derek Parfit responded with words to the effect of "Well, at least a moment of happiness for someone came out of that great tragedy".
TBC, apparently the jig never really happened.
I think there is a basic divide between people in relation to this quote. One important divide would be between people who agree with Parfit and people who disagree, but this is not the divide I’m intending to discuss today.
The divide I have in mind is between, on the hand, those who read this quote and say “Huh, an eccentric philosopher” or “Maybe he has a point” or “Ohh I wonder why he thought that” or even “that’s silly”, and on the other hand, those whose natural instinct is to get very angry or at least a little cross at Parfit.
In some senses, there’s nothing qualitatively exceptional about the case. Yet it captures the difference I’m angling at very well, I think. On the one hand, Parfit was a harmless and good man. There is no possibility he felt a temptation to Nazism for even a moment. He was making a purely abstract point. On the other hand, while I don’t agree with this, one could say “He’s literally wishing one of the most evil men in history well- and in relation to one of his dastardly acts!”. “Even if you thought it”, Parfit’s critic will say “Why on earth would you express it unless you have a pro-Nazi agenda.”
“Well because it’s an interesting thought”, his defender will say. Or “He’s just exploring ideas”.
There are many ways you could capture the distinction I’m pointing at- some related distinctions are:
High openness versus low openness
Abstract versus concrete thinkers
Dialogue as thinking together versus dialogue as signaling
High decoupling versus low decoupling
I encourage you to suggest more in the comments. The only point I want to make is that the case of Hitler’s jig is perhaps the perfect limitus test. It’s obvious that no harm is at stake but at the same time, it’s fucking Hitler.
Part of the distinction I’m getting at is probably as simple as the degree of tolerance, but I don’t think it’s that simple. For example, I’m tolerant of people discussing ideas, but as soon as actual maliciousness and ill will become apparent, my tolerance abruptly cuts off.
I commend, therefore, Hitler’s jig as a test for learning more about people. Finally let me say, on a related topic, that the world would be 40% more pleasant if it there weren’t so many people who seem to think that it’s always appropriate to play Devil’s Advocate, or never appropriate.
There are useful thought experiments that horrify most people to the extent that they can't see their utility; not always, parenthetically, the people I'd predict to shut down.