Introduction
Fred Wenstop discussed the paradigm of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by relating it to other disciplines and then he concluded by saying that in order to increase rationality the decision-maker must accept the role that emotions play in the decision-making process. But first Wenstop laid the groundwork by stating that for MCDA to work there must be conciliation of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines.
It is only through this process of consilience whereby decision-makers can make accurate decisions. The challenge is simple: there is a great gulf between values and beliefs. Belief is used not in religious terms but belief in facts – hard data, numbers, etc. Values on the other hand are felt and linked to emotions. There is a need to find out if emotions can be used to achieve rational decisions or should decision-making be void of emotions and simply focused on data as well as rules and virtues.
Main Body
The author’s dilemma is easy to understand. First of all there are many decision makers who would rather be objective in their decisions rather than be subjective in their decision-making process. There are many sceptics when it comes to using the emotions, intuition and feelings. This is not hard to comprehend because a typical adult has had bad experiences when he or she allowed her emotions to get in the way. Aside from that proponents of MCDA are faced with an uphill battle when it comes to dealing with the other frameworks used to make decisions.
The author solved this dilemma by first clarifying the concept of value. The proponents of MCDA were adamant that “Values are what we care about” and this is the main reason why values should be the driving force in the decision-making process. Yet, when the discussion was gathering steam this assertion was challenged with the counter-argument that values can be subjective. What is valuable to one individual is rubbish to another. Wenstop made a clarification that indeed values are not just about morality but also the thing that a decision-maker might want to achieve and this can even include profit. Therefore, MCDA focuses on outcomes and not on the actions.
In order to test the relevance and efficacy of MCDA as tool for decision-makers, it was analyzed by relating it to ethics which was defined as a framework that can separate, “…situations we aim for and situations we seek to avoid” (p. 163). This was further broken down into three mindsets: virtue ethics; duty ethics; and consequentialism. Virtue ethics is about displaying the right attitude. Examples are the virtue ethics of Confucius and the Aristotelian ethics that transformed how Europeans see themselves. Duty ethics on the other hand is the decision whether a particular action is good or bad with respect to a system of rules such as the Ten Commandments (p. 164). This means that since MCDA is not bound by these rules it is therefore leaning towards consequentialism.
Wenstop acknowledged the success of virtue ethics and duty ethics. There are numerous strategies and management principles that were derived from these two different disciplines and yet MCDA practitioners held on to the belief that values drive the person to make a decision and these values are linked to emotions. In other words it is through the use of emotions that the decision-maker is made aware if a particular decision will be beneficial in the long-term.
One example given was the gospel story wherein Jesus Christ was forced by the Pharisees to acknowledge the importance of duty ethics. Jesus was at a bind because if he will disregard the law regarding the Sabbath then he will be charged with breaking one of the most important tenets of Judaism. But Jesus went to the higher ground when he alluded to the illustration of a sheep that fell into a hole and needed rescuing. The rules forbid any type of heavy work on the Sabbath.
This includes the lifting of a sheep that fell on a presumably deep well. Jesus clarified the decision-making process by appealing to the emotions. The audience made a clear connection to the story and to values. What if the one who fell on the well was not livestock but a son or a daughter – then surely no one will be told twice what to do irregardless if there is a standing order to stop working on that particular time in that particular place.
This is the first demonstration of how emotions can cut through all the legal confusion and the straightjacket limitations of rules. It would be hard to argue that Jesus was wrong. In both short term and long term Jesus was correct in saving the sheep and ultimately in healing the withered hand on a day when it was forbidden to do good works. Wenstop knew that he could not win the argument without considering the objections of those who assert that it only through the removal of emotions and subjectivity and merely studying facts that one can be assured of making correct decisions.
Thus, Wenstop described an experiment conducted by Damasio. In the said experiment the subjects were persons who sustain brain damage, specifically to the prefrontal lobes. As a result they were incapable of making good decisions. It was implied that the prefrontal lobes has something to do with emotions and therefore damage to this area makes it difficult for the subjects to make decisions involving their emotions.
The end result of the experiment prompted Damasio to conclude that the subjects’ failure to make good decisions, especially in problems requiring complex decision-making processes, is linked to their inability to generate emotions. In the said experiment the emotions of the normal person helped them to steer clear of actions that will cause negative consequences. Their body and mind worked in unison to reject a particular action. The emotions of the subjects were utilized to aid in the decision-making process.
In the end Wenstop clarified that when a decision-maker uses MCDA the emotional aspect of the analysis is not simply about preference but emotions connected to values. It is therefore important to determine these values. Since values can be tangible like profit then there is no reason why MCDA cannot use the concept of consilience the jumping together of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory. MCDA practitioners are not lobbying for a more subjective approach to decision-making. In fact they want to decision-makers to judge using all pertinent information. The only difference is the usage of the data. In the MCDA paradigm all the information gathered must be used to see the consequence of a particular action.
The only difference between MCDA and other fact-based theory of decision-making is that aside from getting all the data and all the information needed to decide well, MCDA requires the elicitation of emotion. Thus, after all the preparations were made, after all the studies were made, when every detail of the case was considered, it is the emotions that will guide the decision-maker. Emotions act like device that can magnify the error of a particular action. If an action or a decision does not conform to a predetermined value then the emotions of the decision-maker will be negatively affected.
It is this signal that he must be sensitive in discerning. It is this signal that matters in the decision-making process involving MCDA. But first there must be the establishment of value. There must be an agreement on what is valuable. When this is internalized the person will feel the emotion related to doing something against a particular value. Thus, the emotion of the person becomes a device that guides the decision-maker in making the right decision.