The difference between good intentions and a better life

The article Measuring Social Value is about an incredibly difficult question: How to measure the immeasurable? The author of the article suggest a tool that does not measure a set of objective criteria, but rather displays subjective opinions in a way which makes them transparant.

I personally think that a combination between clear objective criteria on the one hand and transparancy about subjective opinions is a good way to 'measure' social value. I came across what I think is an interesting example of such a combination: The OECD BetterLife Index.

'Measuring' which countries provide better lives for their people is ofcourse a question which has no right answer. It is obviously based on what people value. Yet on the other hand, there are some factors that we can agree on constitute a good life, such as adequate shelter or food. the OECD tool allows the user to adjust the weights of the factors to their subjective vision. It then compares all countries with the weights the user just inputted. Thus it does not compare 'who has better lives in these countries?'. Instead, it compares: 'in which country would you have the best life.' A question that now can be answered. Collecting a large sample of preferences from users could then allow for a more comprehensive comparison.

Talking about objective and subjective data made me think back to a great course I followed back at my home university in Delft. The course was called Process Management. One of the insights it delivered me was that in some circumstances, objective numbers just don't make sense. Especially in highly political situations, it does not really matter what the 'truth' is. It matters whether you, as a decision-maker, can have everybody agree on your preferred solution. I believe that recognizing when there is a need for objective data and when there it is time to recognize that objective data has no value, is especially important in a social context. In such cases, a standardized way of eliciting user preferences is perhaps an idea.

If we assess these two examples above in the context of doing something good for a group of people, then to me, these two examples keep boiling down to an ethical question which I myself have not been able to answer: "Who are we to decide when something is good or better than the old situation of the people we 'help'? My attempt to answer the question would start with: well, there are some objective things which we could assess, such as housing... but think about the OECD example. Can we really compare that? A next step could be: Well, we could ask those we would like to help... but what if we have more knowledge on a subject? What if ignorance disables people to assess what is objectively 'better' for them? I think that before anyone gets involved in a social enterprise, he or she should have at least a sufficient answer to these questions. So ask yourself: how would you answer these questions?