RG Collingwood said that two statements cannot be considered
contradictory unless they are both intended to answer the same
question. He said this because his colleagues (and people even today)
believe that there are a stock set of philosophical questions that
thinkers throughout time have been trying to answer. Collingwood
thinks it's more accurate to say that each philosopher was addressing
his/her own unique questions that arose from the problems,
philosophical or otherwise, that arose from their day. Accordingly,
when the opportunity arises to compare the work of two philosophers it
is always easiest when it's very clear that they are both working on
the same problems and addressing the same questions. If they are not,
then establishing their relation or difference is simply a matter of
pointing out the different questions they were working on.
Collingwood's solution to the issue of how to compare thinkers from
different times in history provides insight on how to answer your
question. At the very least, any human activity or collections of
activity (what you may call a "program" of activities) can be compared
if they are both intended to achieve the same goals. The goals of
activity are the standards of success of those activities. (aristotle)
If charity A forms with the purpose of ending the HIV/Aids epidemic
and their activity consists only of handing out condoms to school
children. Charity B forms with the same purpose and their activity
includes raising money to research new drugs, lobbying congress to
pass education bills to ensure everyone knows how it spreads and
holding public rallies to raise awarness both of the issue they care
about and their organizatation. Given that A and B are formed with
the same purpose/goal, they can be easily compared or evaluated
against the standard of ending the HIV/Aids epidemic. It is correct to
say charity B is superior to A because it does far more to end the
problem. This is not to say B's work is unimportant or
worthless---just that in comparison to B, it is inferior.
The goals of an activity or set of activities (program) provide the
standards by which attempts to achieve those goals are measured. (read
that sentence again) So if you want to compare programs, do so by
first finding out if they are both intended to solve the same
problems. If they are not, then try and find some larger more generic
purpose within which both programs can be compared. In the context of
government, it can frequently be very difficult to decide which
programs to fund and which not to fund. It may be appropriate to show
that one program represents the goals of the community as set forth in
it's charter or other document better than the other. In some cases,
this may not apply and it's entirely up to the discretion of our
elected officials to decide. If that bothers you, remember that
governments don't solve problems, people do--the best solution may be
not to involve the government.
I know of no textbook that deals with comparing competitive programs.
I know
that if such a book exists and it achieves it's goal well, then it
follows the insights provided by Collingwood and Aristotle about how
to evaluate any human activity.
Terms/phrases you may find helpful in comparing A to B: A is more
compatible with the goal of X, A is more prolific, efficient,
comprehensive, productive, constructive, profitable. Domination is
a word used to show that A rules B as a king rules it's subjects---I
dont think you want this connotation.
Cheers,
JM |
