Who Knows When How is More Important Than Why?

The Utilitarians dilemma…

As a natural born utilitarian, I used to easily be won over by a good answer for why (in this piece, why is the outcome). Bonus points for cliches like the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts, the ends justifies the means, or winning is the only thing. More recently, the bothersome question of how has begin monopolizing my psyche; and I'm really starting to welcome it — in what I'm now considering my utilitarian dilemma.

The reason: I've begun to notice that the answer to how has almost a timeless value whereas the answer to why is generally limited to its environmental context. Examples of both (can you pick them out): Lance Armstrong’s Tour de France Wins, Oakland Athletics’ 2002 playoff season, the attempt to end World War II’s pacific theater, the American Revolution, President Lincoln’s Wartime Emancipation Proclamation…

As derived in the examples, the how and the why is very closely aligned. In strategic planning speak, this is synonymous with the strategy and the objective respectively. Using a historical lens to assess both actions and outcomes gives us a more clear measurement for appropriate behaviours. Following along with the above examples, people seem to have a hard time forgiving Lance Armstrong’s use of performance enhancing drugs, but the American Colonies use of war for independence is celebrated.

Disproportionate focus on either factor becomes the issue — with too much focus on the outcome proving to be the most detrimental. Homeland security practitioners should head this concern; immediate and high stakes threats breed overactive responses. As seen to the left, an action is to solve an immediate problem shows how easily the how can be inappropriate.

The emergence of ISIS in Iraq, specifically due to the extreme violence shown, has the potential to push the US to an extreme reactions. Admittedly, direct action to secure or stabilize an unwanted situation can be reactive and half baked, but only initially. In this case, the problem is straight forward – ISIS is gaining power and committing horrific acts, the US has begun employing strategies to mitigate further damage. However, this reaction phase is accompanied with an expiration date.

The GIF to the left tells this story well. The sheep makes it clear it is preparing itself for “battle.” It is also analyzing the situation the entire time. Hence, the sheep is able to make a course correction before an action is taken that can't be undone!

More prudent actions are expected as time goes on, and boiled down, it is really just a indepth review of alternatives. Herein rests the purpose of elevating the how; to create a strategy that will incorporate appropriate actions as they relate to the outcome. By using performance enhancement drugs, Lance Armstrong shows he lost this focus. By contrast, had he only won one Tour drug free, he would still be loved by all. From this authors perspective, an appropriate weighing of the how and why actually supports the definition of a true utilitarian — one who values the timeless assessment.