Ethical considerations of quantifying soft variables

This forum contains all archives from the SD Mailing list (go to http://www.systemdynamics.org/forum/ for more information). This is here as a read-only resource, please post any SD related questions to the SD Discussion forum.
Locked
Michael Evans
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Ethical considerations of quantifying soft variables

Post by Michael Evans »

[ Hosts note. One of Jay Forresters favorite quotes was from the mayor
of a city who, when commenting about Urban Dynamics said - I dont care
if its right or wrong the answer is unacceptable.

This is an interesting area but also one which falls on the edge of this
discussion forum. I am not inclined to post many more messages on this topic
and would suggest that you respond directly to the author of this message. ]

Colleagues,

A comment with regard to the ethics of the soft systems debate:

Soft systems tend to represent human behaviour as quantitative formulae,
something akin to natural law. However, predictions based on the assumed
average person (homo economicus) are more akin to generalisations than
laws. It does not always follow, in either a logical or an ethical sense,
that generalisations can be treated with the same utility as laws.

To clarify the difference, you could say that an accurate generalisation is
about what does happen in practice, whereas a law is more about what must
happen in principle.

In the political and social domain, generalisations about human behaviour
deservedly attract criticism, irrespective of their validity, simply
because a significant proportion of the population usually do not behave
according to the average. It is bad enough to articulate a generalisation
in words. To quantify such a generalisation could, in the public domain, be
perceived as being intolerably utilitarian, treating people as numbers.

So, the pragmatic arguments presented in favour of soft system dynamics
should be balanced against the ethics of making generalisations about
human behaviour: It is not always ‘right’ to estimate and predict a
particular behavioural reaction, especially where the actors represented
are not a party to the decision.

In the commercial world, the ethical philosophy that ‘the ends justify the
means’ (owing to Machiavelli, 1469-1527) only works when it is possible to
separate the means from the ends. We know, in part as a result of systems
theory, that this is not always the case, hence utilitarian approaches to
soft systems analysis in business must be balanced by a moderate view of
immediate and long-term gains and the ethical validity of the process.

There is a rich literature regarding the distinction between generalisation
and natural law. Those cautiously in favour of soft system dynamics, as I
am, should look to their philosophy of science.



Michael Evans
Centre for Water Policy Research
University of New England
mevans@metz.une.edu.au
+ 61 2 6773 3744
fax 2 6773 3237
Locked