Values Added has been up for six months now, and I’d like to take some time to sum up some of the lessons that we can draw from past articles. One phrase that I have often used is moral responsiveness, which is the end goal of values analysis. Broadly defined, a morally responsive policy aims to minimize the violation of values to reduce backlash, and maximize the harmonization of values to garner public support. In developing morally responsive policies, public servants need to give a full hearing to a broad range of moral compasses and make appropriate adjustments, such as altering the design of the policy to make it more acceptable, honing the communications strategy to mobilize support, or even just providing better information to decision makers.
Keep in mind, a morally responsive policy does not need to align with all moral compasses. That’s not possible or even desirable. For example, a left-leaning government does not need to implement socially conservative policies just because some people would be outraged if they didn’t. Nor does a left-leaning government need to believe that socially conservative policies are justified or right. That’s not moral responsiveness; that’s moral agnosticism. Elected governments need to choose between values. It’s their job.
However, a morally responsive policy should account for (or consider) differing moral compasses. This is about paying attention to other views, nothing more and nothing less. A left-leaning government should think about how social conservatives would react to a particular policy before implementation, even if the potential reaction wouldn’t meaningfully alter its approach. This helps governments check their biases, combat groupthink, and avoid unforced errors. It is never a bad thing to consider another aspect of a problem.
This raises a problem though: which sets of values should we focus on? There are probably dozens of different moral compasses out there, some of which are incompatible with Canadian society. There are sets of values (e.g. Maoism, neo-Nazism) that don’t truly merit our respect or close consideration, so they certainly should not be driving our policy-making process. In order to be morally responsive, do policymakers need to consider all of these beliefs?
Of course not. On this website, I focus on three: left-wing, conservative, and libertarian. Each of these are sufficiently widespread to warrant attention, and they are within the bounds of acceptable political discourse – unlike, for example, fascism, which has its own unique moral compass but negligible public support. Although some people may not share the moral compasses of libertarians, for example, any fair observer who values diversity of opinion would admit that there is room in our society for libertarian views. These views are not “evil” or “fringe”, so they deserve some level of attention.
In other words, these three moral compasses lie within Canada’s Overton Window (i.e. the range of views/policies that are politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time). They are socially acceptable, and therefore, they need to be systematically accounted for in policymaking. More extreme moral views (e.g. communism) are rare and unlikely to ever receive widespread support, so public servants don’t need to waste time ensuring that government policies do not violate these values.
It is important to note that moral responsiveness is not the only tool of policy analysis. Values analysis helps make good policy, but it is insufficient alone. There are plenty of questions that values analysis cannot answer: Does Policy X use scarce resources efficiently? Can it be implemented within a reasonable timeframe? Does it conflict with existing law? Does it align with the government’s priorities? And so on.
As a result, there is no reason to throw out risk matrixes, gender-based analysis, or parliamentary scans. These will remain in the policy analyst’s toolbox forever. However, I don’t see any significant downsides to pursuing moral responsiveness, beyond the additional resources that must be devoted to conducting the analysis (and training people in how to do so). It stands to improve policy design and communication strategies, act as a check on personal biases, and account for risks more fully.
But How?
I hope you are nodding your head and agreeing that moral responsiveness is a worthy goal for the government to pursue. But how do we get there?
As demonstrated in several of my articles, values analysis has a few key steps. First, determine which values are operational in the policy space. Usually, only three or four values are driving reactions, and much of the moral controversy often derives from a conflict between two major values. For example, debates over whether gifted education should be publicly funded feature moral reactions based on care/harm, authority/subversion, and liberty/oppression. However, the issue is fundamentally about two different conceptions of fairness, one that emphasises equity and the other that stresses proportionality. Without understanding this key fact, it’s hard to understand why so many people care about gifted education and why it arouses such strong passions.
Second, once the values are identified, find ways to reduce expected moral backlash. Even the best policies violate some values, but certain policy designs are more abrasive than others. Imagine that there are two policy designs under consideration. Both would achieve the same outcome for the same cost. However, Policy A would severely violate the sanctity/degradation value while Policy B would not. Which is the better policy? The answer is obvious. It’s preferable to avoid negative moral reactions, if possible. Period.
The inverse is true as well. If Policy A would harmonize with the sanctity/degradation value and Policy B would not, it is better to select Policy A, even if you are a left-leaning person who doesn’t think the sanctity/degradation value should drive our morality. It doesn’t matter what you think. Large numbers of people disagree, and they will be more likely to support policies that harmonize with their values. Public support is one of the most important currencies in policymaking, and governments cannot afford to leave these easy gains on the table.
Unfortunately, there are no easy wins like this in most policy spaces. Under these circumstances, values analysis stands to illuminate the trade-offs that decisions-makers need to weigh. What is more important: policies that harmonize with the care/harm value or with the fairness/cheating value? It’s not the public servant’s job to say, but they can outline relevant factors that form the contours of the decision.
Going Deeper
This is a rough outline of how values analysis works, but it can be done well or poorly. It’s not as simple as following a recipe, where just focusing on the process can lead to a delicious cake. Sitting around and thinking about values for a couple of minutes won’t lead to morally responsive policy. It takes work and expertise.
Over the next three weeks, I’ll release a guide to values analysis and moral responsiveness to outline how to do it properly. In Buddhism, the Noble Eightfold Path guides practitioners to nirvana. The Threefold Path to Moral Responsiveness is far less profound, but it will hopefully guide public servants to an equally important goal: better policy analysis. The “Folds” of the Threefold Path, which I will explore in the next three articles, are as follows:
- Correct mindset:
- Accurately and impartially assess honestly held values.
- Don’t seek ulterior motives for moral outrage. Most people don’t lie for strategic gains.
- When faced with several possible explanations for beliefs, choose to analyze the most socially acceptable ones first.
- Correct research method:
- Avoid exclusively theoretical assessments when possible. They’re probably wrong. In particular, steer clear of ethical schools (e.g. utilitarianism, deontological ethics, moral absolutes) at all costs – they are worthless for explaining human behaviour.
- Use evidence about real people’s views. This should include data from social media posts and polls.
- Don’t expect people to be perfectly consistent. None of us are, and that’s okay.
- Correct policy development and implementation:
- In designing a policy, account for all socially acceptable moral values, even if certain values won’t guide the policy structure.
- In building support for a policy, be clear and transparent about how values will be affected.
- In implementation, ensure moral considerations are reflected in communications products.
I’m looking forward to providing the entire guide over the next three weeks. Stay tuned!