Hi, my name’s Jeff: Parables about human decency

“Hi, my name’s Jeff,” said the new guy, introducing himself to his coworkers. “Well, technically, it’s Jeffrey, but please just call me Jeff.” As the days went on, Jeff became integrated into the office environment. He got along with most of his coworkers and took part in social events. He even started to see some of his office-mates as good friends.

There was only one part of Jeff’s experience in his new office that made him feel uncomfortable. Travis. Travis seemed like a pretty nice guy, but he had a habit of making Jeff uncomfortable. One morning shortly after starting his new job, Jeff walked into the office and was greeted by Travis with a “Good morning, Jeffrey.” Jeff quickly corrected him, “You can just call me Jeff.” What Jeff had assumed was just an innocent slip-up, however, seemed to become some kind of relentless crusade on Travis’ part. Whether in person or by email, Travis would always say “Jeffrey”. “You can just call me Jeff” became “Just Jeff, please” became “It’s Jeff”, but Travis wouldn’t let up.

Jeff did his best to avoid Travis. He considered bringing up the issue with his boss or HR, but he worried that he would seem petty, or that he was making a mountain out of molehill, or that his coworkers would be mad at him for telling on an experienced colleague to the higher-ups. Jeff decided it was probably best not to press the issue, and to just deal with it.

If I did my job right, you should have sympathized with Jeff and you probably didn’t like Travis very much. After all, Jeff’s desire to be referred to by his shortened name seems like a very reasonable one, and he made that desire very clear, both in his introduction and his later interactions with Travis. Because of this, Travis comes off to us as an unreasonable person and a jerk for refusing to honor Jeff’s simple request. Also note that it doesn’t really matter why Travis is behaving this way. Maybe Travis just doesn’t like the look of Jeff. Maybe he feels somehow threatened by Jeff’s presence. Maybe he has some moral opposition to nicknames. Maybe he just thinks that “Jeff” sounds dumb. None of these reasons would actually justify making Jeff feel uncomfortable by using his full name when he’s repeatedly expressed his wish that people use his shortened name.

The question I want everyone reading this to ask is “What can I learn from Jeff’s story?” What are the implications of how we feel about the way the characters behave? Maybe this next story — a similar scenario — will help shed some light.

“Hi, my name’s Jeff,” said the new guy, introducing himself to his coworkers. After that introduction, all was well for Jeff in the office. He integrated into the office culture, started to make friends with some of his coworkers, and took part in social events.

One day, one of Jeff’s coworkers, Travis, was looking through some personnel files, when he noticed something unexpected: Jeff’s file was listed under the correct last name, but with the first name “Andrew”. At lunch, Travis brought this up to Jeff questioningly. A sheepish-looking Jeff answered, “Andrew is the name my parents gave me, but I never really felt comfortable with it. I always liked the name Jeff a lot better, so I decided to go by that instead.”

Over the next few weeks, Jeff noticed a shift in the way Travis treated him. Travis seemed to be a lot more distant, no matter the context, and when they did have to interact, Travis was always curt and used the name Andrew. Jeff heard from other coworkers that Travis had also been calling him Andrew when speaking to them.

Jeff wasn’t sure how to handle the situation. He considered talking to his boss or HR, but he was worried that his concerns would be dismissed, or that his coworkers would resent him for making a big deal out of it. Jeff decided it was best not to press the issue.

It’s not a very different story in concept. I imagine that you once again feel sympathy for Jeff’s situation, and dislike Travis for making Jeff feel uncomfortable. Like last time, Jeff is clear about his preference of being referred to by that name, and Travis comes off as unreasonable and unlikeable for refusing to honor that preference. Also like last time, Travis’ motivation means very little to us when we judge his behavior. Maybe Travis enjoys making people feel uncomfortable. Maybe he likes the name “Andrew” better than the name “Jeff”. Maybe he believes everyone should accept the name their parents give them. All of these are possible reasons for why Travis acts the way he does, but most of us would probably agree that none of those reasons make his behavior acceptable.

Despite the strong similarity between those stories, it’s clear that there is a difference between them. Going from “Andrew” to “Jeff” is certainly a bigger change than going from “Jeffrey” to “Jeff”. We’ve gone from a mere nickname to more of a change in identity. Importantly, though, this change hasn’t modified how we view the situation in terms of our judgment of Travis’ behavior. In both stories, despite the differences, he is clearly doing something wrong. So, exactly what is Travis doing wrong? This is the question that I want to explore.

Previously, I called attention to the fact that, in both stories, Travis’ reasoning for using the name that Jeff has indicated makes him uncomfortable is irrelevant to how we judge the situation. It’s worth noting that this is a two-way street. It also doesn’t matter, in either story, why Jeff prefers that name over the one that Travis uses. In the first story, whether Jeff just doesn’t like the sound of “Jeffrey”, he feels that “Jeff” somehow represents him better as a person, or he thinks he’ll have bad luck if someone calls him “Jeffrey” instead of “Jeff”, it’s completely irrelevant when we’re making our judgment. Similarly, in the second story, it doesn’t matter what Jeff’s reason is for not identifying with the name “Andrew” and for wanting to be called “Jeff” instead. It’s wholly irrelevant to our understanding that his wish should be respected.

We’ve established now that when Travis uses a name that makes Jeff feel uncomfortable, against Jeff’s stated wishes, this is wrong regardless of Travis’ reason for doing so and regardless of Jeff’s reason for preferring to be called Jeff. This also means that neither Jeff’s reason for preferring that name nor Travis’ reason for refusing to use it can be why Travis’ behavior is wrong. If the underlying reason can be swapped with a completely different one arbitrarily and have no effect on our moral judgment, clearly no specific reason for either character’s behavior can be the explanation for why we condemn Travis.

The explanations that this leaves us with is that Travis’ behavior is wrong not because of its causes, but instead it is either wrong in itself, or it is wrong because of its consequences. For the purposes of this piece, I have no interest in determining which is more likely. All that is important is that we recognize that no reason Travis gives — either for his own refusal to respect Jeff’s wishes, or for why Jeff has the preference he has — can justify his behavior. They are not relevant factors to consider.

So, to finally answer my earlier question: what is Travis doing wrong? He’s actively rejecting the identity of another person, who has the right to determine his own identity. Travis, by refusing to speak to and of Jeff on Jeff’s terms, is acting badly, no matter why he’s doing it. Even if Travis does not accept Jeff’s reasoning for establishing his identity in the way he has, it’s not Travis’ place to act antagonistically.

Now, before I share a third and final story, I feel it would be best to address a potential objection.

An Objection: The False King

Suppose that instead of introducing himself as “Jeff”, the new coworker introduced himself as “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia” and insisted that everyone refer to him in that way. Surely, one might argue, in this situation Travis has no obligation to respect the identity of the new coworker.

While this seems like an obvious conclusion, it also contradicts our previous notion that Travis is morally wrong not to respect the wishes of his coworker. So, what’s the difference? Let’s explore a few options:

Possibility #1: The King is Wrong
We might begin by suggesting that, perhaps, Travis is not obligated to respect the wishes of the new coworker because he is identifying himself incorrectly. That is to say, his name is not really “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia” and therefore Travis needn’t respect the request. The problem with this is that it outright rejects our previous conclusion that Travis was wrong when he insisted on calling Jeff “Andrew” when he learned that the latter was his legal name. If you wish to conclude that Travis is right to refuse to call his coworker “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia” but wrong to refuse to call his coworker “Jeff”, you cannot accept this possibility to be the correct one.

Possibility #2: The King is Mad
We might then consider that the new coworker’s request was made due to some kind of delusion or mental illness, and therefore needn’t be respected. This answer reeks of the stigmatization of and lack of empathy towards mental illness and a culture of treating neurodivergent and mentally ill people as second-class citizens*. However, if we wish to have a serious exploration of ethics, we must still earnestly engage with this possibility. One problem with this answer is that it conflicts with our previously-established principles that the reasons behind both the coworker’s preference and Travis’ behavior are unimportant. To reject these principles in order to assert that mentally ill people ought to be disrespected would be nothing more than a case of special pleading.

Possibility #3: The King is Greedy
Here, we begin to enter the territory that I consider plausible. Another possibility is that the new coworker simply expects too much of his companions. That is to say, “Jeff” is a short and simple name that is not much trouble to remember or say aloud, while “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia” is none of those things. However, we do run into a problem on practical ground. We may feel that the coworker is not justified in making this request, because it is an unreasonably burdensome one, but would Travis truly be in the right to outright disregard it? What should Travis do if he wishes both to respect his coworker and not be unreasonably burdened? Well, assuming that the coworker is acting in good faith, it seems to me that Travis should ask whether there is a shorter name that he would accept instead. Perhaps our friend would see that his request was, in fact, not practical and accept “King Z” or “Zorquax” as substitutes. Of course, the assumption this rests upon takes us to our final possibility…

Possibility #4: Mala Fides
The astute reader will have noticed that, when considering how Travis ought to react to the unusual naming request, I specified the assumption that the coworker making the request was “acting in good faith”. Good faith (Latin bona fides) is a common expression, both in daily life and in the legal profession, and refers to honesty, sincerity, and genuineness of intentions. A person acting in good faith is acting without any ulterior motives. When we think about the interaction between Travis and his new coworker in this light, we realize, firstly, that almost no person acting in good faith would make requests so unreasonably burdensome, as in the example, and would likely also realize that they were acting in a burdensome way if it were brought to their intention. Indeed, most people, acting in good faith, would most likely not at all feel comfortable being referred to by such a lofty, weighty name and title as “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia”, and even if they did, they would be likely to understand why this could be difficult to remember and time-consuming to say each time.

What I am getting at, essentially, is the fact that almost no person who requested to be called “King Zorquaxigon Blementhius IV of Pludonia” or anything of the sort would be doing so in good faith. Here is where we find our key distinction. Requests of the kind that have been discussed here, when made in good faith, should be respected. If they impose some undue burden, good-faith actors will likely be able to resolve this without issue. If a request is made in bad faith, there is no reason to take it seriously, as it seems that the person making the request is not actually invested in whether it is taken seriously. If the request legitimately represents the wishes of the person with respect to their identity, then it should be complied with.

So, from everything we have learned thus far, we can establish a principle: if Person A, acting in good faith, makes clear a preference regarding their identity, other people ought to respect that preference, regardless of A’s reasons for having that preference and the feelings of other people with regards to that preference.

Briefly, I want to mention that, generally speaking, we should assume good faith when people make their preferences known. There are some obvious cases of bad faith, such as mocking comments made by internet trolls, but we should really default to assuming people are making their preferences clear out of a good-faith attempt to communicate their desires, and not some type of nefarious scheme.

Having now covered so much ground, I have one last story to tell:

“Hi, my name’s Jeff,” said the new guy, introducing himself to his coworkers. After that introduction, Jeff started to immerse himself in the office culture: getting to know his fellow workers, taking part in social events, and making friends.

Jeff was integrated into the office environment and became a well-respected member of the team. His coworkers looked up to his work ethic and creativity. Everything was looking up for Jeff.

One day, one of Jeff’s coworkers, Travis, discovered that Jeff had been assigned female at birth. When Travis brought this up to Jeff, the latter acknowledged as much, and said that he had never felt comfortable being raised as a girl, and that he was much happier living as a man.

From this point on, however, Travis would only speak of Jeff as “she”, “her”, and “Ms.” This made Jeff uncomfortable, and he felt excluded in social settings around Travis. He considered going to HR or his boss about it, but he felt that his concerns might be dismissed, or that his coworkers would resent him for expressing his feelings about it. Jeff did his best to avoid Travis after this.

If, for some reason, you felt that, in this story, Travis was in the right, or that Jeff’s identity is not worth respecting, then I challenge you to show how the moral implications of Travis’ actions here differ significantly from the first or second story I provided. I believe my principle holds, and I think the honest reader will find that this final story is not substantively different in any morally relevant ways than the first two.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

*Indeed, there is a wider discussion to be had about the ethics of how we treat people who are mentally ill. The stigmatization of mental conditions has resulted in people being disparaged, mistreated, and deprived of important care. There is a persistent idea that people with mental illness are somehow lesser or less deserving of our ethical consideration and fair treatment. The only reason I even included the possibility that mental illness is a relevant factor here is that I have legitimately encountered people using mental illness as justification for mistreatment.