Ideology and Engineering

I often find myself mired down in interests/ideology when I'm reading academic work, judicial opinions, etc. So for instance, it seems to me that the debate over executive compensation is driven in large part by ideology, even if on the surface the debate is conducted in the language of economics. If you look hard enough, you can see an ideological angle to almost anything, and I think this poisons the atmosphere. On the other hand, we shouldn't be blind to reality, so it's a delicate balance.

I think history provides a pretty good example of what I mean. The Romans built aqueducts to bring water from far away. The water carried sediment with it, so it emptied into giant settling tanks, from which it was distributed to the citizens. The pipes leading out of the settling tanks were arranged so that the top two pipes went to temples and private houses (I've forgotten which was on top), while the bottom pipe went to public fountains for everyone's use.

So the question is, why were the public fountains supplied from the bottom pipe? The optimistic answer is that in times of scarcity the bottom pipe would be the last to be cut off. The pessimistic answer is that sediment settles to the bottom, so the lowest pipe would provide the lowest quality water. Obviously these things are not mutually exclusive, but the engineering decision was probably driven by one or the other.

It seems to me that if you're drawn to the former explanation, you're likely to appreciate the great advantages of the way our society is organized, including the market, the rule of law, and democracy. If you're drawn to the second explanation, you're likely to see the world in terms of power struggles among interest groups, with the spoils going to the rich, the powerful, or the politically adept.

What I don't know is how to balance these impulses. I guess it's one of those areas where you just have to keep all the arguments in mind and do your best, which isn't a very satisfactory answer.