OUGHTNESS: Two complementary systemic meanings
| Collection | International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics |
|---|---|
| Year | 2004 |
| Vol. (num.) | 2(2) |
| ID | ◀ 2445 ▶ |
| Object type | Human sciences, Epistemology, ontology or semantics |
There are two different identifiable meanings in systemic terms to the concept of “oughtness” as introduced by A. BAHM (1978 — 1992).
The regulation of road traffic offers a good example. First, traffic ought to be organized through rules in order to make it efficient as a transportation system. This includes priority rules, overtaking rules, maxima and minima speed limits, a code of traffic lights and other road signals, etc… This “oughtness” is related to a sound organization and regulation of a very complex man-machine system, needed in order to avoid collective anarchy, leading to total paralysis.
Second, these rules and regulations would be totally ineffective if not obeyed by the human users. This is the “man” part of the man-machine system and it implies a sense of personal responsability in every user.
The traffic code must not only be understood as a set of integrated rules, but also as a system organized for the best welfare of all users, which ought to be respected for the sake of social harmony. As some users are not understanding this necessity, society as a whole created a special social corps — traffic patrols — to attend this non-tecnical aspect of the traffic system.
Curiously, this last feature introduces two quite different ways to understand oughtness: either through one's sense of responsability, or through the fear of penalties.
These different technical and social ways to understand what could be called techno-social situations are at the root of the differences opposing some systemists' point of views, as for example H.A. SIMON and C.W. CHURCHMAN.
See also
Systems Philosophy