3.  Limited Decisions

Not always do we find ourselves with the time and/or resources needed to search for and find that "greatest COMPASSIONATE outcome." So, our decision-making may be limited to choosing among options when we haven't all the means available needed to make a judicious selection among them. In a sense, we may find ourselves forced into choosing among illusions of RIGHT, because we haven't all the means available to distinguish the seemingly from the definitely RIGHT. In these scenarios wrong choices may seem RIGHT. Such decisions may still be called "Righteous" even though they may lead to less than optimal outcomes, but only so long as the "most" seemingly RIGHTEOUS option was selected under those constraints limiting an adequate analysis.

  4.  Retribution

Punishment for a wrong is certainly not compassionate. Lawsuits, imprisonment and other forms of punishment may seem to serve individual victims of wrong more so than society in general, but the roads to JUSTICE and COMPENSATION are our only weapons in deterring other future would-be-criminals from freely conducting similar activities, assuming the punishments today are advertised publicly and enter into common public knowledge. Moreover, certainly victims deserve compensation for suffering. In so doing we envision a greater compassionate outcome for future potential would-be-victims than if we were to refrain from inflicting punishment altogether.

  5.  Golden(?) Rule

Treat others as you would yourself prefer to be treated? Sounds logical, but it's not. The underlying assumption is that others have the same preferences you do.

You mustn’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you,
because they may have differing tastes! — George Bernard Shaw

At times what may seem a compassionate outcome may in fact be an entirely intolerable and inconsiderate outcome but only for the sheer reason of differing personal preferences. Assuming others think like we do, we must realize, usually provides a good estimate. It's imprecise and at times can actually lead to some inconsiderate consequences.

  Where the Golden Rule does help us in decision-making is where we are attempting to gage appropriate compensation. Where we may be attempting to deduce what is JUST COMPENSATION for a suffered wrong or services rendered or goods bartered or so forth the Golden Rule is what we typically rely upon as we introspect a bit to recognize how we may feel if we were caught in a similar situation. Then we typically ask the other party about personal feelings and preferences to help guard against the above.

  Yes, certainly there are those incidences where survival of an entire society may demand "sacrifice of the individual," but in such cases we always do our best at ascertaining that sufficient compensation is doled to those individuals who willingly assume (forced into assuming?) such sacrifice, provided of course that the necessary time and resources are available to do so. Moreover, it has been argued, such "sufficiency” is not attained until the compensation-loss in question actually begins to be perceived as "a desirous tradeoff.” Additionally, we must always do our best at ascertaining that the situation indeed demands such an individual effort: Could not a group share the burden a bit better perhaps? ...which brings us to the following discussion....

D.  Needs of the many outweigh those of the few(?)

As sound as this guidepost may seem, it's true validity rests upon a host of underlying assumptions. The first two rules on the previous page provide a much better guide. For an explanation read on...

  Yes, it is certainly true that always must we appropriately hold back our own individual wants when they conflict with the needs of other fellow beings. We must allow the living demands of others to overpower our own self-directed goals and assumptions. Anything less would reflect of tyranny.

  However, always must we recognize that what may seem necessary 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, sacrifice by the few for the many may seem appropriate and necessary while in fact being entirely unnecessary ... if only someone would recognize the boundaries to their thinking as cast by their own humanly assumptions!

  Furthermore, to illustrate with an example, for all immediate considerations in the short term, the needs of one hundred vicious rodents could never outweigh the needs of only one loving human. The human is far more compassionate and giving a creature than any multitude of rodents. In the short term, a single and caring human life shall always bear greater significance than any number of ignorant, vicious swine. The RIGHT decision is ALWAYS the MOST COMPASSIONATE! That decision that leads to the greatest compassionate final outcome should always bear greatest significance, priority and preferred implementation.

  We had to insist on that phrase, "the immediate short term,” in the preceding example, however, because an imaginary scenario of some future predicament could yield a rare exception not yet considered. Imagine some odd wartime scenario where a trained rodent saves the day for example! In such a scenario, sacrificing the lives of a few humans so as to save the life of a single trained rodent so that that rodent may then save the lives of even more humans would of course yield a greater compassionate outcome than the sole prospect of saving a few humans, abandoning the rodent and therefore the lives of the many other humans.

  But then, to take the above an additional step further, the prospect of saving the lives of many humans as opposed to a few humans again rests on an underlying assumption: "Who are those humans?” To illustrate, suppose that in our imaginary wartime scenario we have a choice between saving several trained officers versus saving several hundred schoolchildren. And suppose that we may then envision utilizing the skills of the trained officers for saving an enormous population of citizens! Under such circumstances, the original notion of abandoning a rodent so as to save the lives of several trained officers would then lead to a more optimal outcome (even though, sadly, several hundred schoolchildren had to be sacrificed along the way). Extenuating circumstances and underlying details in the end always shape true propriety.

E.  Overriding Priorities and Probability

...all of which brings us to this final discussion.

  Apparently, Compassion overrides all other considerations. For non-trivial decisions, the

Right Decision is ALWAYS the MOST COMPASSIONATE!

  Compassion overrides even Safety. See Simpleminded error: Safety versus Compassion for a continued discussion. And Safety and Compassion override laying even legal responsibility, at least for a moment, so as to protect from harm and/or eliminate ongoing suffering ... ALWAYS. See Simpleminded Error: Law versus Right and Morality in Decision Making for greater clarification.

  The preceding rules (on the previous page) will ALWAYS lead us to the RIGHT conclusions. Especially do we find them useful when stakes are high and tensions mounting. Nothing can achieve greater significance or priority than protecting the lives of all those who may subsequently become burdened by your decision-making, and this means protecting them to a maximal degree! In the absence of suffering, happiness always ranks secondary to preservation of CONSCIOUS life. Where there is suffering or dread though, COMPASSION determines the most appropriate course to take. As professionals we must aspire to always take a step back and recognize the BIG picture so as to make decisions that are RIGHT for everyone whose lives may be affected. As a professional decision-maker, a leader whom everyone is looking to and relying upon for superior direction, you must replace your own inherent self-centeredness with something more along the lines of, "What’s best for YOU?” As an example, you must be willing to arrive at selfless, self-deprecating — even potentially self-inflicting — conclusions derived along the lines of, say,

"However disagreeable this... may be to Me,
it is far better than that... possibility facing You.”

Apathy gets us nowhere, while Protection and Prevention get us going in the Right directions. Remember your Primary Priority: Protect All Those Who May Become Affected By Your Decision-making. Protection from Potential Harm is your GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY.

  In the long run, NOTHING is of greater importance or attains higher priority than considerations of Individual Rights. Nothing, no issue of "fairness," no capital gain or loss, no argument — however popular, emotion-packed or powerfully advocated — can achieve greater significance or value than caring for and protecting the lives of all those who will subsequently become affected by your decisions ... to a maximal degree! Though this statement may not apply generally to the short-term, in the long-term it will always hold true (assuming things always work out the way we plan [uh-hum!]). As an example, consider wartime or crime-fighting, or even certain rescue and medical operations. In these scenarios, short-term losses are at times sustained so as to achieve greater long-term gains. Similarly, consider employees who engage in dangerous or potentially risky activities for the sole sake of yielding some particular service or product. Here, the long-term gains for society offset the potential risks involved for the individual employees, but ALWAYS do we attempt to minimize (and sometimes actually eliminate) those risks with the appropriate training and equipment.

  Despite all our nifty rules and guides, though, the next problem to consider is a vexing one. It's not easily solved, and we have no easy rules to guide our thinking. It's uncertainty, or probability, and we decision-makers LOATHE it when we are forced to confront it in the professional decision-making arena. Nothing can be worse than guessing at or estimating final outcomes when actual lives revolve around your decision-making! Sometimes the guesses are wrong, and people suffer. Other times our estimates fall short of accurately predicting reality, and again people suffer needlessly, for only erroneously anticipating a false potential for disaster. To compound the problem, sometimes some gambling idiot assumes a role of "professional” decision-maker and makes us all look like fools when he/she successfully gambles on bad odds!

  Make note before continuing: Professional decision-making is not a game! Actual lives depend on your superior supervision. The gambling decision-maker who succeeds once is not likely to succeed again with similar odds. Reality just won't let it happen, and we would be wise to remember this when such an individual somehow attains a professional decision-making position. Such a person would be best confined to a jail cell playing with board games rather than be allowed to play with actual beings in a professional workplace setting. Never should we allow such individuals to assume professional decision-making positions! Any hint of such ruthless and unsound decision-making should suffice to provide our law enforcement authorities with sufficient grounds to snatch them out of office before someone becomes needlessly hurt!

  Always keep in mind that how accurately we may perceive a situation subsequently determines how effectively we may think about it — imagine and prepare for it. If we overlook any tiny subtlety in our initial perceptions, all our subsequent planning will likely prove erroneous, and we may just have to start all over again. Wrong perceptions likely lead to wrong decisions. So, the lesson is simple: Either you know everything about the situation or you don't. (What you don’t know can hurt you!) And either you can imagine and prepare for everything that you don't know with the time and resources which you may have available or you cannot. As a professional decision-maker, fear and worry should become your predominant guides to all decision-making, more so than trust or blind confidence. If we lack any knowledge, information or resource in any given role as decision-maker that could hinder our capacity to discover or select an (there is not necessarily one, unique) optimal solution to a given problem, maybe we may then at least find a good, safe, viable solution that can be improved upon in time. We must never scoff at subtle, calamitous possibility.

  Just remember that ... however insignificant ... however isolated or remote ... however improbable it may be ... one miniscule possibility for a tragic outcome to a decision DOES suffice to bar that particular decision's implementation ... unless and until that single, unmanageable, tragic possibility can somehow be prevented or mitigated into some other more benign possible outcome (or until all the other alternative outcomes turn out to be worse than the unsafe contingency in question!). Otherwise, you may later find yourself facing a dire situation that could have been easily prevented at the outset ... with one priceless, simple decision.

  When confronting difficult choices try to recognize, for example, how one definitely leads to a greatest compassionate final outcome while another only possibly leads to a lesser. Where possible, always opt for the greatest compassionate final outcome of greatest certainty. (It's no fun gambling lives on a roll of dice!) See Competence: A Decision-making Rule and Competence: Exception to the Rule? for greater clarification.

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 Monday, June 14, 2004.
http://www.mdpme.com/decision4.htm

Terms of use &
Disclaimer/Privacy.