The How and Why Count As Much As the What in Decision-making?

If you've been following this blog, I have been spending a lot of time on moral reasoning in making decisions or choices. Why such a lofty topic? Nitty-gritty truth time. I, like many people in the United States, are EXTREMELY concerned by decisions being made by our elected officials and it is a lot to do with the how and the why. Don't get me wrong. What choices and decisions are made are very important because consequences are real for ALL citizens and like it or not, we are all in this social structure together and it ultimately matters for our survival. That is EXACTLY what moral reasoning is all about. Figuring out best decisions that ensures for the survival of the species, decisions that consider not just our own needs and wants, but the needs and wants of those we share this space with, no matter the size or scope of the societal group in question.

Long being disturbed by the choices fellow citizens make, I started pondering and asking, "What thought process is leading to these destructive decisions?" The easy answer might be we are thinking only about ourselves and show little to no concern for other people, or only people in our immediate vicinity, or people who look, talk, dress, think, etc. like us. That could certainly be the case but generally speaking there is brain activity associated with the choices and decisions humans make. When disastrous outcomes can be seen for so many people it may be time to really get down to the why and how choices are being made in the world around us. When I say disastrous, I'm not being dramatic. People at the top levels of government are getting in the way of human needs, physical, psychological and social all in the name of .... what exactly? Power and money? Placing a particular demographic above all others? That's what I'm seeing.

How are decisions being made in our government? By the power of one person who uses threats and intimidation (abusive) to get what he wants and bypasses the organization set in the U.S. Constitution that created three co-equal branches of government for the express purpose of never having too much power in the hands of one person. Around the world, government by one person is frowned upon and rarely benefits any except the teeny tiny circle of sycophants that surround said monarch, ruler, dictator. The most disturbing aspect is that we, as a country, are sacrificing the why, how and even WHO of decision-making to what end? Is it truly only for a sense of power and money? Personal power (self-agency) is a human need but has to be regulated (preferably by the self) in order not to infringe on other people's self-agency. Money is important because it is how humans exchange needed goods and services from all these other humans we share space with but that's all it's good for. It is not a measure of human worth. Having more doesn't actually mean you are superior to others no matter how much a person tries to convince the world otherwise. In my value system, human beings are worthy because they EXIST as a creation of what my faith calls God.

So I can't help but think about what framework for moral reasoning is at work for different issues in the world around us. Could it be that decision making in the executive branch of U.S. government being comes from Utilitarian thinking? Remember the t-shirt slogan?? The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number? That's the slogan selling the idea, what presents on the outside. Who is counting in that "number?" Greatest number of ???

Utilitarianism/Consequentialism is widely used in business and pairs well with cost/benefit analysis. Of course, the question is what's the cost and from where and who gets the benefit, right? If you've been following recent politics you may have noticed lots of government agencies are losing staff and funds were being withheld (and maybe still are) at the executive level for various programs authorized by the legislature. Other people are at risk for losing protections and necessary assistance based on disability or being a member of a minority (not of the greatest number). Those are all costs being born by a significant number of citizens. There are further concerns regarding Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security which provide insurance and some income for the elderly or disabled. The WHAT is reducing government and taxes. The "budget savings" are necessary in order to lower taxes for other people, likely the ones on the upper end of the income scale. Again, who pays the cost and who benefits? At what point does the actual cost impact become more than any benefit, especially for people who have all their needs met and operate on the "wants" level of wealth.

If the president is approaching the current issues from a business owner standpoint, which some people consider a strength and a good thing, is the thinking done largely through the lens of Utilitianism? I can see some elements, but I think there may be one or two others from our list of candidates for "Moral Reasoning by Our President." Some people might say the president's inner circle is not reasoning morally at all however the choices are deliberate and follow a pattern. As we continue to dig just a little more into moral reasoning, it will be interesting to see what characteristics of each we see on the national stage or closer to home. And that's where we will go from here.