> From time to time I have a radical and impractical thought, for example:
"ethics audits" of public policy. An ethics audit would estimate
anticipated and actual effects of a policy on happiness distribution.
> Happiness is linked to wealth in a diminishing-return relation, but
involves such factors as fairness, self respect, health, stability,
safety, comfort, convenience, cultural involvement, educational
opportunities, employment opportunities, recreational opportunities,
social opportunities, fellowship, love, hope, purposefulness,
accomplishment, relief of anxiety, ability to accept limits, etc.
> The imaginary ethics audits would analyze policy effects not only across the socioeconomic spectrum but also across genders, regions, ethnicities, nations, religions and especially across time to future generations.
> In my opinion, the main policies of Republican administrations
and congresses deserve negative ethics scores: passing tax laws that
further enrich the wealthy, cripple Social Security and burden future
generations with our expenditures; failing to address resource waste,
environmental degradation and the population explosion; ignoring export
of middle-class-ladder jobs to maximize corporate profits and trade
imbalance; killing 1/2 million and humiliating millions of Arabs for
reasons that would not justify war even if true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think that what you suggest is worthwhile and practical. (And may already be happening.)
I'm not, er, happy with your terminology, so I'll deal with that first.
There are several problems I have with using the word "ethics" in this context. I'll provide just one for now: I believe the US public already associates the word "ethics" in a government context with something completely different. (Namely investigations of Past Intent of Politicians rather than of Future Consequences of Policy.)
I'm not sure about "audit" either. I associate that word with random tests of a small sample. Is that your, er, intent?
Regardless of terminology, I think your idea is more practical than you might think. Contemporary computer models simulating society are rapidly becoming uncannily realistic. And the goal here is merely to provoke thought about plausible Consequences, not to come up with certainties.
So perhaps Universities should run proposed policies through society simulators and publish the results for further discussion. Perhaps they or others already do precisely this, and it's just a case of formalizing this process and tying results back into the policy making process.
Post a Comment