Q:
People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

A:
People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. This is indeed true because the emotion that triggered the decision will taint the logic that is used as justification afterwards. Ultimately, emotions cloud sound judgement.

Individuals who are addicted to drugs and alcohol base their decision to consume unhealthy to deadly amounts of dangerous substances are driven by their uncontrollable impulse. Often times, this is exacerbated by other emotions such as fear, stress, and anxiety. The "logic " used to justify taking these substances is that they help reduce unpleasant feelings in one's life. However, this hindsight logic is clearly faulty and has been skewed by emotions that caused the decision to take these substances in the first place. Scientific studies have clearly shown that taking drugs and alcohol worsens feelings such as fear, stress, and anxiety, rather than reduce them. Thus, people who make the decision to take harmful substances as a result of emotions do not use sound logic and facts to justify their decision afterwards. It is difficult to make an unbiased and perceptive logical support of one's decision if the decision was devoid of logic to begin with.

Events in history also prove that those who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. When the US entered into the Iraq War, many Americans were fueled by their feelings of grief and anger after the 9/11 attacks. This was a key catalyst for American support in the war. As a means of vindicating this decision in hindsight, US lawmakers cited the possibility of finding Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) in Iraq despite tenuous evidence. Ultimately, this proved to be a fatal decision, as no WMD's were found. The war costed Americans billions of dollars and countless lives. Furthermore, the war destabilized Iraq and allowed for terrorists groups like ISIS to become more prominent once many lawmakers regretted their decision and pulled troops out. The war is a clear example of how emotional decisions can lead to confirmation biases which hinder one's ability to use sound logic and evidence-based thinking. Decisions should start with a logical base, rather than an emotional one, because correcting one's choices can become exceeding difficult.

In personal relationships, people often say things that they do not mean in the heat of the moment. Within the current timeframe, individuals subconsciously justify their words with logic that are seemingly reasonable. However, as time passes, people realize that what they communicated could have been emotionally hurtful, damaging to a relationship, or completely false. These instances are painful reminder to people that decisions fueled by emotions cause regret and are difficult to justify with emotions afterwards. A mind that is plagued by emotional instability does not possess the clarity needed to make logical decisions.

Emotions are powerful motivators behind decisions. However, people know that logic is a critical part of making decisions, which is why they feel the need to justify decisions in hindsight with it. Unfortunately, using logic after a decision has been late can often be too late. Consequences have already occurred by then. To avoid these results, people should begin the decision making process in a rational way, rather than on faulty emotional foundations.

Q:
An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be paid subsidies for farming the new variety of millet. Since millet is already a staple food in Tagus, people will readily adopt the new variety. To combat vitamin A deficiency, the government of Tagus should do everything it can to promote this new type of millet.

Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.


A:
There many factors to consider before the government of Tagus should promote this new type of millet. This includes Tagus’s financial capacities, social factors, and scientific uncertainties.

The government of Tagus will subsidize for farming the new variety of millet. While this may relieve the financial burdens of farmers, it may incur an additional cost to the Tagus government. It will be important to consider how much money the government can afford to spend on this project. A multitude of factors must be considered. If Tagus is in the midst of a violent dispute with its neighboring areas, the physical security of Tagus would be a more important issue that the government should invest more financial resources in, rather than on subsidizing the farming of millet. If Tagus has a high national debt, its ability to spend on subsidies will be even more hindered. The financial and political state of Tagus will play a large role in determining its ability to provide these subsidies to farmers.

Furthermore, while millet is a staple food in Tagus, this new engineered Tagus could taste different than the millet that the people in Tagus are used to. While the newly engineered millet might provide certain health benefits, people could be reluctant to eat it if it does not match their palate tastes. Ultimately, social factors like these will determine if people will be willing to actually consume this new product. If people do not eat this new breed of millet due to poor taste, the people of Tagus will not receive the benefits of it

The newly engineering breed of millet is high in vitamin A. This will supposedly bring a health benefit to the people of Tagus. However, in the case of many engineered food, there may be potential negative health consequences. There is no shortage of scientific literature that engineering and processed food, such as GMOs, can cause unintended sicknesses and health irregularities. While the new breed of millet has been created with good intent, there needs to be more scientific investigation done to ensure that it does not end up hurting the health of the people of Tagus.

In summary, the question of Tagus’s financial capabilities, people’s willingness to consume the new millet, and potential health drawbacks of eating the new millet are questions that need to be answered before the Tagus government spends significant amounts of resources to promote the new type of millet. Investigating these questions will ensure that the plan to promote the new millet is one that is feasible, one has the approval of the people of Tagus, and one that will not damage the health of the people of Tagus. Risks of the plan must be minimized first through addressing these issues before it can be executed.