Is a government able to decide how to act based on what effects and side effects that action has?

Question

Firstly they would have to truthfully figure out if what goals they were even shooting for were right and good and just and honorable and benificial, then they would have to decide what actions to take to reach that goal based on wether it has all positive effects and side effects, or all positive effects and some negative side effects, and if not that then all positive effects and all negative side effects, and then some postive effects and some negative side effects, and then mostly positive effects and mostly negative effects and mostly negative effects and mostly negative side effects and then lastly all negative side effects and all negative side effects. Isn't this a spectrum with which to rate possible actions so as to have a tool to decide what would be the actual true best action to take? would this help any government be more benevolent and effective?

Answer 1

Your comments rely heavily on judgment and the people in the government being able to process this judgment logically. This seldom if ever happens.

For government to be logical certain ideas must be applied in a universal manner to everyone. Take health care for example.

Saying that we need to provide health care for everyone makes sense logically.

Saying that we need to provide it only for certain people creates inequities that just need to be addressed later. often in vastly more expensive ways. All judgment based inequities have a way of biting the hand that feeds them.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

Yes,you have a point.
This is typically how "focus groups" came about;
testing something on a small group to decide whether
some idea/action might work.
Thia can work for or to the good- telephone polls too(and even though it is known in advance that some poor people
do not have telephones).
This is an intelligent and reasonable way for a government to act;and it should be Open as much as possible too,to stop misuse.

Answer 3

No, I dont think that the government can make decesions based on the effets and side effects because no one can truely say what the side effect of an action is. It may be a action that has already been done but effects can change with the weather and the mood and the people involved. There for no one can really make decesions based on the side effects an action has.

Answer 4

You see a lot of decisions have dilemmas

For example tax or policies on international trade. They help some and do not help others

Of course the government can look back on it's mistakes and try to find ways to avoid them but that only makes it what...so easy

The problem is trying to find solutions that are kinda like sustainable growth (get what I mean?). Most decisions will always have pros and cons, the problem comes when trying to find the solution that had the least negative effect.

Answer 5

In a "perfect" world, this already is supposed to be happening. An example would be when the government performs an environmental impact study prior to building anything. But the government is lead by Humans. And if you stick a nice sweet thick juicy plump pulsing wad of cash under the right nose, you can get anything you want.
It might go something like this.
Rich Jerk, "Hello Mr. Congressman. I hear your environmental impact study revealed that the local Power lines are causing newborn children to die from cancer."
Mr. Congressman, "Yes, and how can you help me?"
Rich Jerk, "I can see to it that an anonymous donor contributes 1.5 billion dollars into your bank account. That is of course you just "" accidentally forget to sign the study records."'
Mr. Congressman, "You Know, I was just sitting here thinking to myself.... SELF now what was it that I was supposed to sign...." "Oh, I just can't remember."
Rich Jerk, "Thanks, and how is your campaign fund doing these days???"

Answer 6

I think if someone in the government could understand what you have written then they could make an informed decision but they cant even take it in turns to stand up and speak in Parliament let alone make a sensible decision where they take any of the side affects into account

Answer 7

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the nature of the beast. Greed for power, fame and money blight all other considerations. There is no help for fools. Unfortunately, they bring the whole nation down. And fools is all we're getting.

Answer 8

Not in this world based on original sin.

Answer 9

Crime does not pay ... as well as politics.
Alfred E. Newman


(These make me laugh out loud, not to mention they are rather apt)