Process Before Preference

Aug 8
2 min read

It is easy to begin with a preferred result and work backward until the process appears justified. The harder task is deciding what rule should apply before knowing who will benefit.

Separate the questions

“Do I want this outcome?” and “Was this action properly taken?” are distinct questions. You can support a policy while questioning the authority used to implement it. You can dislike a result while recognizing that the decision followed the relevant procedure.

Keeping those questions separate allows a more honest disagreement. It also prevents a procedural criticism from being mistaken for endorsement of the opposing policy.

The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. Photo: Ken Hammond / USDA. Source · Public domain. Image unmodified.

Apply the reversal test

Imagine an opponent using the same power, accepting the same quality of evidence, and offering the same explanation. Would you still defend the standard? If not, identify the relevant difference.

There may be a meaningful distinction. Different facts or legal settings can justify different outcomes. The distinction should be stated and supported, rather than supplied by party labels.

Make the rule visible

Before arguing about a controversy, write a short statement of your standard. For example: an allegation deserves investigation when credible evidence supports it, and the strength of the conclusion should match the record.

Then apply that statement to the current case. Identify evidence that supports your preferred view and evidence that complicates it. Ask what finding would make you revise your position.

Accountability needs a method

Demanding accountability is compatible with demanding reliable evidence and a fair process. Without a method, accountability can become a label for whichever outcome a speaker already wants.

Process before preference is a discipline for testing our own reasoning. Its value becomes clearest when following it is politically inconvenient.