If one is perfectly rational (omniscience would even be better), yes, otherwise I do not think it is a good idea for a lot of reasons. Just on the top of my head :
It is very hard to be accurate, let alone objective, when analysing “impact on society” or “quality of character”, and the result is dependent on the criteria used.
When there is a big variability within a group (race, genre or whatever), statistics are not very useful and you should end up with a better model by getting to know the person.
Anchoring effect : People are bad at updating evidence when given a first information, there are already enough problems with stereotypes without making it official.
Given a set of parameters, there would be strong incentives to neglect others parameters or to game the system.
Personal responsibility : One qualities depends on a lot things, what are we taking into account? Nature? Nurture? Nothing?
If one is perfectly rational (omniscience would even be better), yes, otherwise I do not think it is a good idea for a lot of reasons. Just on the top of my head :
It is very hard to be accurate, let alone objective, when analysing “impact on society” or “quality of character”, and the result is dependent on the criteria used.
When there is a big variability within a group (race, genre or whatever), statistics are not very useful and you should end up with a better model by getting to know the person.
Anchoring effect : People are bad at updating evidence when given a first information, there are already enough problems with stereotypes without making it official.
Given a set of parameters, there would be strong incentives to neglect others parameters or to game the system.
Personal responsibility : One qualities depends on a lot things, what are we taking into account? Nature? Nurture? Nothing?