Ethics of Objects

Central to the study of ethics is determining the criteria by which something can be considered "right" or "good." Fundamental to that question is the identity of the "something" that is assessed - and while my working definition of ethics already identifies the decision to act as the subject of ethical scrutiny, my sense is that it merits further consideration.

For the present post, I'll explore "things" - objects - with the aim of considering whether they are correctly excluded as the subject of ethics. However, the notion that an object can be inherently good or evil seems entirely absurd. An object "does" nothing - it undertakes no actions, and therefore cannot be held accountable for its intentions, or any consequences.

The consideration of the ethics of an object becomes slightly less absurd if the object has the potential to do harm: a berry that is poisonous might do harm to someone who consumes it, a rock with a sharp edge might do harm to someone who treads upon it, a tree might do harm if it should fall upon someone.

Objects with the potential to do harm are considered to be "dangerous" rather than "unethical." Under certain circumstances, we might consider it to be ethical for a person to prevent them from doing harm, but this is entirely beside the point: the object itself is not assessed by the standards of ethics.

To go a step further: what of objects that are designed or fashioned so as to be dangerous? A product may be unsafe, or it may even designed to be used to inflict harm (such as a poison). But even in these instances, an object is still merely dangerous - if any question of ethics arises, it is generally asked of the person who designed the object, or the person who uses it, or of the person who provides it to another to be used.

Thus far, I have considered ethics only in the negative view - that which is wrong, evil, or harmful. But if objects were considered in the positive view - that which is right, good, or helpful - my sense is that I would arrive at the same conclusion: that an object that is designed or used to have a positive effect is not inherently right or good, but is potentially beneficial - and any ethical assessment is made of the design, use, or provisioning of such an object for a beneficial purpose.

This may be more germane in the context of business, where an individual seeks to obtain an object due to its potential to be put to a beneficial use, but exploring that dynamic can be done in greater detail at another time.

And finally, to round things out, there are objects that seem neither inherently dangerous nor potentially beneficial - though it may be argued that any object can be dangerous or beneficial depending on how it is used. This further underscores the conclusion that it would be incorrect to apply ethics to an object, but to the action that involves its use.

This may bear further consideration, but for now, I feel that I've exhausted this line of inquiry, and arrived at the conclusion that ethics is not applicable to objects.