"Live" Issue #2

Thesis: Mostly agree Reason 1: In a group setting, each individual can provide advice in their specific area of expertise, leading to a better decision in the long-term. Reason 2: Decisions made by a sole individual often lead to catastrophic outcomes.  Concession: I do concede that group decision making can be a time-consuming process, which is not necessarily ideal if a decision needs to be made quickly. Many nations around the world have witnessed their democratic institutions degrade in the modern era, leaving one figure in charge to make decisions. The prompt argues that such a phenomenon is not ideal and that decisions made by groups are often superior to those made by a sole person. I mostly agree with this assertion for the following two reasons, though I do concede that group decision making can be time-consuming and is not exactly ideal in pressing situations.  First of all, decisions made by groups are often better because a single person does not possess the expertise required in every domain to make an informed choice. For example, if a government is deciding to dramatically alter its economic system, say transitioning from a socialist-based economy to one that is capitalist, numerous, perhaps even hundreds, of experts are needed to ensure that this process occurs smoothly. A country's leader will need to consult economists, sociologists, and government bureaucrats who are familiar with the logistics and operations of the government. Decisions in our modern world are incredibly complex, so complex that one person cannot hope to have the knowledge necessary to make a choice that leads to positive outcomes. Second of all, history has shown that decisions made by a single individual often lead to catastrophic outcomes. For instance, Julius Caesar, of his own accord, decided to engage in a civil war with Pompey the Great, a war that led to the collapse of the Roman Republic, the death of hundreds of thousands of people, and nearly a decade of war. In addition, a more modern example is Hitler's rash choice to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 without duly considering the expert advice of his military advisors. Hitler's decision led to the death of millions of people (mostly citizens of the USSR) and ultimately triggered the collapse of Nazi Germany. While the latter was obviously a positive, the price the world had to pay for it to happen is hard to comprehend. Whenever a decision is made by one individual, he or she cannot fathom the potential repercussions that might ensue. If the leader were to consult with a group and form a collective decision, these consequences would most likely be outlined by one member of the group and possibly even forestall the reckless action.     Nevertheless, I do concede that group decision making is a time-consuming process and is not ideal in exigent situations. For example, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, president Franklin Roosevelt had to respond immediately and did not have the time to engage in lengthy discussions with his cabinet. In addition, imagine if one hostile country were to launch a nuclear missile at another. The leader of the intended target would have literally minutes to decide on a course of action, which is obviously not amenable to group discussion. Whenever leaders or decision makers find themselves on the defensive and having to react quickly, they unfortunately do not have the time to investigate the best recourse via group discussion and are thus forced to act alone, regardless of the potential consequences. In these cases, action, even rash action, is preferable to no action at all.  In conclusion, in most cases, decision by committee is preferable for the reasons outlined above. However, in the most pressing of situations, it is reasonable for a leader to act alone, even if his or her decision is ultimately not the right one.