Policies come and go within any large civil society and that is just how we must function in order to get at solutions to pressing problems. That we as humans are passionate about our policies is admirable and the correct emotion to express when advocating for what may be hard to get implemented. However, there are limits to our passion being appreciated and one of those limits is when the logic of our policy falls short of our morality, ethics and overall equality and justice. There are many who are intentionally honest about their advocacy for policies but regardless fall short of the logical conclusions they espouse to happen. It isn't that we can't, through sequence, explain their inaccuracies, since mostly they will not allow for objectivity when they have taken a stand that they cannot go back from, it is that they won't receive the logic. So the passion we here from some must always be met with the test of logical accuracy and end result. Logic will get us as close as we can absent the time to use hindsight so logic must be one of the main components in determining whether a policy has the fulfillment of the passion being given it. I see some who would talk around the problem like it doesn't exist so that their solution is not weighed in the same light with the problem. Like they know something is off in their analysis but they are committed and cannot turn back. I suppose the old saw about "if I don't acknowledge it then it doesn't really exist" is a premise to the conclusion in replacing the unknown they wish not to identify. Anyway, for whatever reason, nefarious or misplaced, a policy being advocated with passion must have the logic of it's solution in balance with the logic of it's end result.
No comments:
Post a Comment