B.  Justice and Mercy (John Winthrop)

No one may study decision-making without also studying righteousness. Righteousness, Robustness and Compassion are all inexorably interwoven in any non-trivial decision-making deliberation. Many decisions that seem to be of frivolous significance or of little or no impact on living beings cannot be carried completely through without asking, "Who?” or "How?” or "Why?” And the answers to these questions then bring us back once again to the emotional, compassionate and Right.

  John Winthrop recognized this clearly, in the early 1600s¹ — nearly 400 years ago! — when he wrote:

There are two rules whereby we are to walk one towards another: Justice and Mercy. These are always distinguished in their act and in their object, yet may they both concurre in the same subject in eache respect; as sometimes there may be an occasion of showing mercy to a rich man in some sudden danger or distresse, and alsoe doeing of meere justice to a poor man in regard of some perticular contract &c. (Source: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1838.)²

Justice remains our resolute guide until alas we discover that an exception must be made so that a conflict may be resolved Mercifully, such as for the "rich man in some sudden danger or distresse.” But Mercy shows no heart when a contract has been broken and the poor man suffers from a broken agreement. Justice gives us the rules to live by, while Mercy gives us the means to break them when an exception has been overlooked.

  Moreover, looking forward, the prospect of perhaps subsequently having to make exceptions to our rule-writing could be avoided entirely if we were to ascertain, today, that they are indeed Robust and prepared for anything. Looking backward, always must we decide with Mercy (Compassion & Responsibility) to compensate those who may have suffered the consequences of previously overlooked subtleties in our former decision-making and correct the oversights so as to prevent the same possibilities from happening again. Finally, focusing our attention on the present, both actions may be described as Just (the Right things to do), because we CARE for all our fellow beings.

C.  RIGHT yields GREATEST COMPASSIONATE final outcome

For non-trivial decisions, that chosen solution that yields the greatest compassionate final outcome among all other alternatives should always achieve greatest priority and preferred implementation. So, our thinking mustn't become fixated on our present or immediate situation. Though this may at times be difficult to actually do, especially when we find ourselves short on resources and/or time, when possible always should we bear in mind the final consequences/outcomes to our decision-making ... before our decisions are even implemented!

  Combining this reasoning now with the ideas of Justice and Mercy above, always must we consider not only those conclusive and consequential outcomes to our own self-propelled actions/ideas but also responsibility for our own past mistakes. In short, always must we prepare for future possibility, compensate for past error, and select compassionately and judiciously among all present alternatives.

  Note too that selfish pursuits may enter into decision-making ONLY when there is NO POSSIBILITY of dreadful consequence. SAFETY, SECURITY and COMPASSION always reach the top of any list of priorities. What is best for YOU is NOT always what's best in general. (Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is NOT generally applicable.) You must keep in mind that focusing all your thoughts on YOU, on strategic gain for self, on offense-defense decision-making strategies is not generally appropriate and in fact is RARELY appropriate to the social setting. This mode of thinking is DANGEROUS, because it redirects all your thinking away from considerations for the well-being of others and solely toward considerations for what is best for only you. See Simpleminded error: Commitment To Righteousness for a further discussion.

  Further, note that "greatest compassionate final outcome" DOES NOT implicate "greatest happiness." For example, in no way is it Just or Righteous for society to, say, destroy the lives of the few so that the many may lead happier lives! COMPASSION PRESERVES LIFE! And to a maximal degree! Said in another way, GREATEST COMPASSION minimizes suffering and dread. Certainly, a single individual caring for everyone may be impractical physically, but never emotionally. Though you may not be able to DO everything in the way of helping and caring for others, you should always feel that propensity within you. And that emotion within you will always become apparent in the subsequent outcomes to the decisions you make. Righteousness represents a lofty goal to gain, but you certainly won't reach it if you overlook the welfare of all your fellow beings around you! Respect and be Considerate of Others. See Avoiding Error: A Fundamental Emotion.

  Finally, five points must be addressed before completing discussion on this rule:

  1.  Moral Luck

Not all RIGHT choices are initially made from a RIGHT MOTIVE. A slothful individual, for example, may aim to decide lazily and opt for an apparently wrong and self-centered choice while indeed inadvertently selecting an absolutely RIGHT choice as an outcome of certain extenuating and hidden circumstances. In other words, our slothful decision-maker may purposely choose wrongly but luckily happen upon the RIGHT optimal choice, even though little or no effort was made to search for it. Nevertheless, RIGHT choices made from wrong motives are still wrong. A King sitting atop a hill remains "King of the Hill" only so long as his decision-making is not only Strategic and Robust, but above all Righteous.

  For example, the strategic business owner who ruthlessly monopolizes a particular market mustn't be allowed to maintain his position. But, likewise, the court judge who lazily opts to decide according to the status in quo rather than exert any effort to search for and deduce a robust result so as to prepare for maybe a rare exception perhaps previously and commonly overlooked cannot be allowed to continue in his occupation as well. Unlike everyday, impromptu decision-making, professional decision-making requires us to get to work to try to find a best result. For professional decision-makers, satisficing (i.e., in psychological parlance, "'getting by’ with what seems sufficiently appropriate at the time”) just won't do. There are no second-chances when your decision-making revolves around actual lives!

  Selfish strategies, so common to impromptu decision-making, can (1) lead to rapid gains or (2) help you to avoid drastic losses, but in the professional arena we must keep such decision-making righteous and robust (i.e., responsible, compassionate and safe) if we wish those strategies for gain or loss-avoidance ever to become actually realized and/or maintained. Modern society won’t condone anything less! (See Simpleminded error: Tool Mnemonics: P-I-G.)

Desire for something may be intense. It may be so strong as to override estimation of the consequences that will follow acting upon it.
— John Dewey, Experience and Education, 1938.

... we fix on actions in view of an end: the difficulty is to allow for any real moral obligation....
.    .    .    .
Aristotle thus insists that a completely right action must be not only 'externally’ the right thing to do in the circumstance, but also done from a right motive, proceeding from a moral agent acting precisely as a moral agent. — Frederick Charles Copleston, A History of Philosophy: Greece & Rome, Vol. I, 1965.

  Never blindly engage a professional decision. Always should you be aware of ALL variables that possibly may enter into a scenario and ALL possible outcomes that may ensue. Never expect matters to luckily work out as you may immediately hope! Success never comes easy! Winners win consistently by virtue of HARD WORK and DEDICATION and rarely or never by sheer chance. Work Now. Play Safe. Stay Fair. And Reap Later.

  2.  Neutral or Trivial Decisions

In not all situations do we necessarily confront a RIGHT versus WRONG choice. Some decision-making is NEUTRAL. There is no dire or dreadful consequences associated among any of the options available. In such scenarios we can live comfortably by the consequences of any of the choices offered. Which shoe should you tie first each morning? Left? Or right? Or does it really matter? Such decisions are trivial. Actually, most of the decisions we face on a daily basis fit in this category. There are no dreadful consequences to concern ourselves with. There are no RIGHT or WRONG choices.

  Because of this, some of us may build up a false sense of confidence about decision-making. If we consistently make appropriate choices on a daily basis for countless decisions, and with relative ease, apparently we may grow confident in our decision-making abilities. As a professional, however, you would be wise to forget many of your decision-making confidences! Safety is now your ultimate and unyielding guide! See Competence: Some Helpful Mnemonics.

PROCEED WITH CAUTION!!

Always must we recognize that what may seem appropriate, JUST and RIGHT, or perhaps entirely of no considerable consequence, may not actually be so once ALL possible avenues, factors, variables, special cases, rare exceptions, possible underlying causes, potential subsequent consequences, potential emotional responses, potential interpretations or mis-rationalizations, and finally any immediate and initiate responsibilities are COMPLETELY taken into consideration. Sometimes what may seem appropriate or necessary or trivial may be in fact entirely inappropriate, unnecessary or catastrophic ... if only someone would recognize the boundaries to their thinking as cast by their own humanly assumptions! So, the lesson is ...

DOUBLE-CHECK ... TRIPLE-CHECK ...
BEWARE what you may have OVERLOOKED!!!

It is not given to man to know what is right and what is wrong. Men always did and always will err, and in nothing more than in what they consider right and wrong.
— Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, V.

All opinions expressed in this web site, unless otherwise noted, are my own, Michael Gaspard. If you notice any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please let me know by e-mailing webmaster@mdpme.com. Thank you!

This web page was last updated on Saturday, May 29, 2004.
http://www.mdpme.com/decision3.htm

Terms of use &
Disclaimer/Privacy.