Indeed. It gets even more complicated, when you realize that based on prevailing circumstances, one course of action may be preferential to another-- but when those circumstances change, the desirability/correctness of that action can simply evaporate.
Take for instance:
If you have a fever (prevailing condition)- then taking an anti-inflammatory drug to make the fever go down may be beneficial, to avoid cooking your internal organs.
However, if you are perfectly healthy-- taking the anti-inflammatory drug is probably not advisable, because they are linked with stomach and liver problems.
That's a pretty straight forward, and easy to follow example, but the real world is filled with far more difficult conundrums that are harder to sort out-- say for instance, the impacts of aggressive controls on carbon emissions in the face of climate change and the economic fallout of those controls. (This does not ask the question if climate change is real or not-- it assumes that it is-- it instead asks if aggressive emissions controls on carbon based fuels is more beneficial than detrimental. It's a complicated question, because there are many nuances to the details of the conundrum.)
When you throw in such ephemeral (but completely real!) factors as cultural bias, subjective bias, and destructive self-interests, you can land in a very untenable situation very quickly.