The Problem With Consequence-Based Decision Making

Making decisions is a key aspect of our brains and daily lived experiences. Whether we realize it or not, we are constantly making decisions. Those decisions are driven by different models, some of which we habitually lean on more heavily than others. One of these models is consequence-based reasoning, or the tendency to make decisions based on their impact or consequences on the individual or those around them. This model is so baked into our thinking that it can be hard to imagine an alternative. That’s because it is so appealing. It feels rational, objective, even scientific. It is easy to communicate and justify. It aligns with meeting goals. It just feels fair.

But there are plenty of reasons to be cautious about consequence-based thinking. First, there is the problem of justice. Often, consequence-based thinking benefits the majority at the cost of some minority. Therefore, freeways run through poor neighborhoods and people with limited vision can't use beautiful products. The needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few is well and good for Mr. Spock but at some point, we need to recognize that the few are really getting screwed.

Other problems with consequence-based reasoning relate to how our brains work. For example, we have two mental systems concerning judgment and decision-making. Type I is quick, effortless, and intuitive. Why did you smile and shake hands when introduced to someone new? It didn't feel like a decision; you just did it because that response is programmed into your brain. Type II processing is more thoughtful, analytical, and reflective. These are the judgments and decisions that require mental effort. Research has shown that this tends to be how consequence-based thinking works because it requires us to consider the costs and benefits of the options at hand. Unfortunately, these judgments change based on how tired we are, whether we've eaten recently, and how much other stuff is on our minds. Any time we rely on a mental process that leads to different conclusions based on our current state, the degree of consistency is not great.

This concern is compounded by motivated reasoning. When we are motivated to come to a conclusion that is in our interest, we more easily think of reasons to support that conclusion. Maybe you've felt that by giving yourself a particularly generous performance evaluation at work, you were only leveling the playing field compared to how your colleagues rated themselves. While that may be true, it's an easier conclusion to reach because it's in your interest. What's especially difficult about motivated reasoning is that people usually have no idea they are doing it. And even if they are aware, they can never really know how it affects their judgment.

Finally, there are the golden rule problems. We’ve all heard the original golden rule, “Treat other people like you would like to be treated.” The problem can be addressed with new versions. “Treat others as they would have you treat them.” While this is a distinct improvement, we still don’t know what motivates others and often neither do they; we are just guessing about the best way to treat them. This makes consequence-based thinking fundamentally arrogant because one has to believe they have the information and wisdom to decide what will likely result in the best outcome for all involved.

What can we do about it? Considering the other ways people make decisions, isn’t consequence-based decision-making the least bad option? We must consider the outcomes to make good decisions. Right?

Maybe, maybe not. Philosophers certainly have a lot to say on the topic, even if there is no consensus. Some argue for purely rule-based decision-making; right and wrong exist regardless of the consequences. For example, many people would see bribing an official as unacceptable even if the result was in the best interests of everyone involved. Alternatively, one can focus purely on the consequences to oneself. Assuming we understand our goals, this is the easiest and safest form of reasoning and it certainly solves the problem of motivated reasoning. But this can lead to other problems related to trust and common welfare because, in a community making decisions like this, everyone is so busy securing their own interests that few people can really thrive.

Luckily, there is a kind of compromise between rules and consequences. This approach involves establishing a set of policies which, if followed, will generally (but not always) result in positive outcomes for all involved. “Never heat fish in the office microwave.” “Never make anyone bear more than their fair share of harm.” These are two policies that will generally work out for the best. This rule-based decision-making has other advantages, too. It is open, prospective, and clear. Individual motivations are less concerning and decisions depend less on what we had for lunch.