Essay About Problem Solvers And Hired Gun Conception

The Limits of a Needs Analysis
The Limits of a Needs Analysis ,
A focus on an analysis of the parties needs and an attempt to
meet those needs has its own limitations. To the extent that the
problem-solving model is based on utilitarian philosophical or
economic justifications, the most powerful and trenchant criticisms
can be found in the literature which criticizes utilitarian justifications
for human endeavor. In a sense there are two
criticisms. The first, an economic claim, states that there is yet no
proof that maximizing joint gain is more efficient either for the
parties or for the larger sphere in which transactions occur.329
This may be true, but we also cant say that adversarial negotiations
have been either more efficient or more wealth-creating.
The second, a moral claim, is that trying to satisfy the parties
needs, like maximizing happiness or pleasure,330 is not a morally
correct measure of our actions.33 The legal analog of this critique
would be that meeting parties needs is not much different from
the hired gun conception of the adversarialThe second, a moral claim, is that trying to satisfy the parties
needs, like maximizing happiness or pleasure,330 is not a morally
correct measure of our actions.33 The legal analog of this critique
would be that meeting parties needs is not much different from
the hired gun conception of the adversarial model; lawyers are
merely conduits of their clients needs. The only differences between
problem solvers and adversarial negotiators are that problem
solvers attempt to meet two sets of needs, and that problem
solvers act on stated, rather than “presumed” needs. As discussed
more fully above, my response to these objections, like John Stuart
Mills, is that notions of morality, justness, and rightness are
part of the pleasure or happiness we seek and should be part of
327. Cooperative games in game theory, those where coordination and joint