Power Without Conscience

 How do we justify actions that affect others?  This is one of those questions that leads a conscientious person down a philosophical rabbit hole.  First of all, “What is the right thing to do?” There are different ways to think about this. Some people believe that we should do what is best for everyone, no matter what. Others think that we should follow rules and principles, even if they do not seem right. And some people think that we should do what is best for ourselves, even if it means hurting others.

That leads us to the question, “Did the people affected agree?” If they did, then it is probably okay to do what we want to do. But if they did not, then we need to think about why and if it is still okay.  This brings us back to asking, “Was it fair?” If it was not, then we need to think about why and if we can make it right.  Fairness brings up the question, “Did it cause more harm than good?” If it did, then we need to think about why and if we can make it better.  That brings up our accountability, “Did we tell the people affected what we were going to do?” If we did not, then we need to think about why and if we can make it right.

At this point, things get difficult because we must consider, “Did we do what we said we would do?” If we did not, then we need to think about why and if we can make it right.  Using power does not guarantee results, but those who are affected by our choices of action may not understand that consequence.  Before we act, we must ask, “Did we think about how it might affect others?” If we did not, then we need to think about why and if we can make it right.

So, “What is right?”

Determining what’s “right” in social interactions and governance can be tricky because ethical and moral values are often personal and based on culture. With a clear conscience, we approach objectivity by using measurable or comparable criteria. There are many approaches.

For example, we can use utilitarian metrics such as a happiness or well-being index. This measures the overall happiness, satisfaction, or well-being that comes from a decision or action. We can use surveys, the Gross National Happiness Index, or subjective well-being scales to measure this.

   Or, we can use a cost-benefit analysis, looking at the benefits and harms of an action in terms of money, health, or social things. If the benefits are bigger than the harms, the decision is usually “okay.”  But what if it is not?

Well, then there are rights-based measures like equality indicators. These measure how well people’s rights are respected, like access to justice, freedom, or basic needs. We can use things like the Human Development Index or the Gini coefficient for income equality to measure this.  We can measure compliance with norms or laws to base our subsequent actions on how well actions follow established legal or ethical rules.  We can get others involved to establish a procedural fairness, measuring how many people were involved in decision-making processes.  In looking at the process, we can use transparency ratings to measure how clear and open the processes leading to decisions are. We can use transparency indices or public trust surveys to measure this.

Once acted upon, we can take outcomes-based measurements to focus on the results of decisions and actions. They can be used to evaluate how well decisions are working and to make changes if needed.  This leads us to ensuring the outcomes are viewed favorably to those who were affected very indirectly and have little basis to judge the decision.  We can measure everything from safety to health to economics to ethics to consensus agreement to moral pluralism to tradition to precedence to justice to cultural alignment to benchmarks to comparative effectiveness.  In other words, we can analyze the results to oblivion.

While these methods aim for objectivity, they are often influenced by underlying subjective judgments such as which metrics to prioritize. The interplay of quantitative data and qualitative values ensures a holistic approach to determining what’s right.

In other words, doing what is right depends on the subjective, “Who decides what is right?”  The answer to that is, “We all do, and we seldom agree.”  However, in each moment of life, each of us may be called upon to decide what is right for us, which affects others either directly or indirectly.  To make life even more challenging, not deciding is a decision, too.  Therefore, we have no way around it.  Does that mean all of our decisions come down to a feeling of what feels right in the moment?  Is the outcome of our conscience merely a feeling of what is right?  How can that be justified in the context of others?