Difficult to Discern
Before I introduce my two proposals it is essential that I first develop some empirical means of judging the winner. After all, if one proposal is to be better than the other, then I should be able to point to some specific reasons.
Feasibility:
The first criteria is feasibility; any proposal must be able to be implemented under reasonable circumstances. A feasible proposal will not require an inordinate amount of effort, resources, or time to implement. I admit that this vaguely rolls three separate categories into one, but I find it difficult to analyze any one of them without considering the other.
Criteria
Ethics:
The third criteria analyzes the ethics of a solution. This is a little harder to articulate empirically, but any proposal must pass some moral test, or less empirically, it needs to feel “right.” This criteria, in particular, is hard to judge because testing something against someone’s moral code is extremely subjective. Ultimately, there must be some grounds for moral justification in any satisfactory proposal. For my purposes, I am trying to follow fairly universally held societal norms such as murder and stealing is “wrong” or that charity and goodwill are “right”.
Acceptability:
The second criteria is acceptability, this is the willingness of the general populace to go along with the plan. Some aspects of the following proposals may necessitate a public vote in order to implement, and by definition this is requesting popular support. There will always be critics of anything new and different but, as in any society, it is important to have the support of the public in order for a program to succeed.
Fairness:
The last criteria is related to ethics, but I believe deserves an independent category. The fourth criteria is fairness, the betterment of one group cannot come at the expenses of another. A fair solution is one that does right by all parties, not just one that writes the rules. To be fair, all relevant information must be considered and weighed in a justifiable way, as to come to a solution that equally benefits all.
​
For the sake of clarity I will use three potential levels to indicate how well a proposal ranks in a criteria. The lowest level is poor, this ranking indicates that the proposal either does not, or address very slightly the criteria. The middle ranking is moderate, a proposal earns this ranking if it addresses the criteria somewhat, but fails to completely address all aspects of it. The highest ranking is excellent; this ranking is reserved for the proposals that addresses a criteria exceptionally well.