This does not mean we abandon the rigor and clarity that comes with assigning numbers and probabilities when faced with complex tradeoffs. Nor do we ignore them as information or inputs into our decision making.
The issue arises when those numbers are used in the aggregate, for non-substitutable things. For example, when faced with the two job policies I mentioned as an example, is the policy with greater net jobs objectively the “most responsible way” to go?
Okay point taken, better join those two paragraphs so it will not be separately read as stand alone ideas...But to your point, the devil is always in the details and hypothetical scenarios are very difficult to analyze. Probably add a better example to your argument as I cannot understand why there was jobs lost in the first place.
Yes of course—as I wrote:
The issue arises when those numbers are used in the aggregate, for non-substitutable things. For example, when faced with the two job policies I mentioned as an example, is the policy with greater net jobs objectively the “most responsible way” to go?
Okay point taken, better join those two paragraphs so it will not be separately read as stand alone ideas...But to your point, the devil is always in the details and hypothetical scenarios are very difficult to analyze. Probably add a better example to your argument as I cannot understand why there was jobs lost in the first place.