A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author favors judging both how a decision is made and what it achieves. He argues that judging only the result could excuse cruel treatment of witnesses if it improved accuracy. Judging only the process could accept clearly bad results if people were treated with respect and allowed to take part in a meaningful way.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
This states the author’s mixed standard for judging public decisions: neither outcomes nor process virtues alone suffice.
Clear rules do not ensure meaningful participation
It makes participation and results jointly relevant, while cautioning that meaningful participation alone cannot excuse clearly bad outcomes.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The author thinks a decision process should be judged by what it achieves and by how it treats and involves people.
Why it matters
Good results alone would not settle whether a process is acceptable. Respectful treatment and participation alone would not settle whether its results are acceptable.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The passage gives possible examples of how either standard alone could permit a troubling decision. Judging only the result could excuse cruel treatment of witnesses. Judging only the process could accept clearly bad results when people were treated respectfully and allowed meaningful participation. Addresses: The author's preference for judging both the process and its results.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The revision states the possible case in which judging only the process might accept bad results, as well as the example about judging only results.