Decisions! Decisions!

I haven’t blogged in forever, but this is going to have to be a flash blog post since I got TONS to do. Here goes:

The issue being raised is how to make decision. The complicating factor is whether institutional rules should prevail, or whether the human element should be considered. For instance, when running a program, it is important to maintain the integrity of a program and stick to rules, regulations, and other such discretionary policies. These outlined policies help guide people when it comes to making decisions, and they keep an organization consistent and well maintained. On the other hand is the human element, which takes subjective matters (such as one’s relationship toward something, the impact such a thing has on the group, etc) into consideration.

The case for human consideration is summarized in the philosophical challenges of egalitarianism. Suppose there was a train coming towards two groups of people, and you had control over how the train should steer. You can choose for the train to run over 100 people, or 10 people–which group would you choose to kill? If the ‘rule’ was to save as many people as possible under egalitarianism, then certainly, we would move to kill the 10 people. However, when you throw in the human element, what if the 10 people were your closest friends and family members? Would you still kill the 10? Or what if you knew that the 10 people were all extraordinary leaders who could bring world peace? What would you then?

So the institutional rule is convenient for making decisions, because the path to making decisions is defined and written in black and white. There is no extenuating circumstances, there are no extraneous considerations, there is no human element to consider. There is only the rules, and the rules are the rules to be applied to all people. But is treating all people as such considered just?

For instance, it is often argued that affirmative action should be used to redress the inequalities that have been persistent in the United States. However, opponents of affirmative action claim that such treatment isn’t considered equality and based on strict meritocracy. Yet, in order to take historical injustices into consideration, differential treatment (ie affirmative action) must be applied to balance the scales.  If treating everyone ‘equally’ isn’t considered right when thinking about ‘equity’, then would processing all people through simple rules and regulations be considered just?

I raise this question as one that is directly tied to one’s foundational life philosophy. In Rhetoric, it is important to consider every situation and circumstance based in its context. Decisions must be made in consideration of context. You can’t make the same speech to every crowd, just as you can’t bake the same pie and expect everyone to love it. You must tailor your speech, tailor your pie, depending on the audience you greet, the circumstances you’re in, the time frame in which you deliver. The contingent circumstance is a fundamental preoccupation in Rhetoric. Rules and regulations bypass circumstances and context and apply the same formula to all. But applying the same regulations for all is to ask people of all ages to listen to a speech on quantum mechanics–some people probably will not appreciate it, and most will probably fall asleep.

Basically, the point I am trying to make is that decision making based on rules and regulations have pros and cons. The pros include consistency, predictability, and reliability. The cons include not making the right decisions for the right people in the right occasions–a challenge that can bring frustration, injury, and sometimes injustice. How should one make decisions? How flexible should one be when making rules and regulations? When is being flexible going too far?