By: Lucio Munoz – Independent QLC researcher/consultant
Morality calls for using total effect detectability or individual effect detectability for policy formulation and planning, not group effect detectability because the moral relevance of total effect detectability and of individual effect detectability is higher than that of group effect detectability. This is one of the conclusions that can be derived when inverting Hansson’s morality/indetectability hypotheses(Hansson 1999) through qualitative comparative means as shown in this paper.
However, in practice policy formulation and planning is based on group effect detectability only as total effect detectability and individual effect detectability are not cost-effective in terms of available methodologies and money. Therefore, it is cost-effectiveness, not morality, which determines the use of group detectability techniques to support the formulation of policy and planning. Among the goals of this paper is to show using qualitative comparative tools that the moral relevance of fully detectable or of individually detectable effects is not behind policy formulation, planning and implementation despite having higher moral relevance than that that of group detectable effects because of cost-effectiveness and methodological constraints associated with them.