??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.
From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?
For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.
Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.
Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.
The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober
What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?
Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.
As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.
FWIW, I suggest you read
this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope
