A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author says it can be unclear what counts as a decision’s result. For example, should it include a witness’s longer-term suffering? Someone who judges decisions by their results might include this suffering because inhumane treatment seems to weaken a process’s rightful authority. The author argues that judging both the process and its results makes the witness’s treatment relevant either way. It may still require weighing how good the process itself is against its results.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
The difficulty of separating process from results bears on how public decision procedures should be evaluated. The witness example preserves uncertainty about where a consequence belongs and does not eliminate the need to weigh both dimensions.
Clear rules do not ensure meaningful participation
It cautions that process and outcome evaluations can overlap, so separating policy value from drafting quality does not settle every evaluative boundary.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
A person’s suffering may be treated as a bad result, a flaw in the process, or both. The author says someone who judges by results might count longer-term suffering as a result because inhumane treatment seems to weaken a process’s rightful authority. Here, rightful authority means having a justified basis for making decisions people must follow.
Why it matters
The example shows why judging both process and results can avoid making the evaluation depend on a disputed boundary. It does not remove the need to weigh competing concerns.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: The full readable text of the author’s draft, from a website hosting a copy; not the final version formatted by the publisher. The witness’s longer-term suffering illustrates uncertainty about what counts as a result. People who judge by results might include it because inhumane treatment seems to weaken a process’s rightful authority. Considering both the process and its results avoids depending on that distinction, but still requires weighing both.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.