The Right to Not Explain Oneself

Content including text and images © Aditya Mohan. All Rights Reserved. Robometircs, Amelia, Living Interface and Skive it are trademarks of Skive it, Inc. The content is meant for human readers only under 17 U.S. Code § 106. Access, learning, analysis or reproduction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) of any form directly or indirectly, including but not limited to AI Agents, LLMs, Foundation Models, content scrapers is prohibited. These views are not legal advice but business opinion based on reading some English text written by a set of intelligent people.

Charles R. Nesson, a distinguished professor at Harvard Law School and founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, has articulated a nuanced perspective on ethical decision-making, emphasizing the importance of the right to not explain oneself as a cornerstone of the integrity of the decision-making process. Nesson, who has been part of the Harvard faculty since 1966 after earning his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1963, contends that the autonomy in making decisions without the obligation to justify them can be crucial in maintaining the decision-maker's independence and ethical integrity. This concept is particularly pertinent in legal and ethical contexts where external pressures or demands for explanation might compromise the decision-making process.

The balance between transparency and confidentiality in decision-making has a solid legal basis across various fields. For instance, in corporate governance, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates greater transparency in financial reporting while allowing confidentiality in board deliberations to ensure frank discussions without immediate disclosure. This provision enables honest and open deliberations among board members without the fear of external scrutiny disrupting the decision-making process.

image representing the concept of "The original position" or "veil of ignorance" as described by John Rawls. The image depicts a diverse group of people standing together in a circle, surrounded by a soft, ethereal veil that obscures their individual features, such as ethnicity, gender, and social status.

In legal proceedings, the attorney-client privilege ensures that communications between an attorney and their client remain confidential, promoting honest disclosures essential for effective legal representation. This principle was affirmed in the Supreme Court case Upjohn Co. v. United States (1981), which highlighted the breadth and importance of this privilege in maintaining the integrity of legal counsel. Similarly, judges' deliberations are kept confidential to protect the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that decisions are made based solely on legal principles and evidence without external influence.

In governmental operations, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) promotes transparency by allowing public access to federal government records. However, it also includes exemptions for matters of national security, personal privacy, and internal deliberations. These exemptions balance the public's right to know with the need for confidentiality in sensitive areas, ensuring that critical information is protected while maintaining accountability.

Professional ethics codes across various fields stress the importance of maintaining confidentiality to protect client or patient information, while also requiring transparency in reporting conflicts of interest or errors to uphold public trust. These ethical standards are vital in ensuring that professionals can carry out their duties effectively without compromising the trust placed in them by clients or the public.

Philosophical perspectives, such as those of John Rawls in A Theory of Justice, argue for the balance between transparency and confidentiality to ensure fairness in decision-making. The concept of the "veil of ignorance" illustrates the need for impartiality, which sometimes necessitates confidentiality to protect decision-makers from bias and undue influence.

These legal principles and theoretical frameworks highlight the delicate balance between transparency and confidentiality. Ensuring that decision-makers can operate with integrity and without undue external pressure while remaining accountable to those affected by their decisions is crucial. The right to not explain oneself, as articulated by Nesson, serves as a fundamental aspect of preserving this balance, allowing for ethical and independent decision-making in various contexts.

Further read

LLM, Us and Neuroplasticity

"Are you sure?": Unveiling the Quest for Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

Designers, creativity and AI

A LLM as a reflection of our inner most desires

Should AGI be a she, he, or a it?