Consequences: To Self and to Others

A significant factor in assessing the ethics of a decision lies in the parties impacted by a decision. The primary distinction seems to be the individual who makes a decision, others who can influence the decision, and others who have no influence over the decision. Each of these parties may be subject to the consequences of a given decision.

It is supposed that an individual who makes a decision, but is not impacted by the consequences of that decision, is in an objective position and is best qualified to make the determination of which course of action to undertake. I would not entirely agree with that assessment: primarily, because I cannot presently conceive on an instance in which a person is not impacted by a decision that he, himself, makes. The decision-maker's interests are served at some level.

When an individual who makes a decision is impacted by the consequences, and makes the decision that is of greatest benefit to himself, this is perceived as deciding in self-interest. It is presumed that a rational individual will make the decision that is of greatest benefit to himself.

There is a special case in which the consequences of a decision impact only the person who makes the decision - no other party will benefit from or be harmed by the consequences of the action that is subject to the decision. This is unusual, but not entirely unheard of, and I would suggest that such decisions are outside the scope of ethics.

However, it stands to reason that ethics may imply a duty on others who are aware of such a decision to intervene in instances where an individuals make a decisions that are harmful to themselves. Whether intervening in this manner is right or wrong is a topic to be considered later - but for the present, it is concluded that instances in which an individual makes a decision that impact only himself are outside the scope of ethics, at least for the individual making the decision (whether to intervene is a separate decision).

When the consequences of a decision by one person have an impact on others, that decision becomes a subject of ethical consideration: specifically, whether the individual has the "right" to make a decision that impacts others, and whether the individual is to be held accountable for the impact of their decision upon others.

There is the notion of whether the others who are impacted by the decision have a corresponding duty to the decision-maker. If one is harmed by the action of another, does one have the "right" to retaliate or extract compensation? If one is benefited by the action of another, does one "owe" anything to the decision-maker? However, these are separate topics, as what is under consideration is not the present action, but a separate action to be taken in response.

In terms of the ethics of the immediate decision, the question arises of what level of consideration should be given to the benefit or harm that will be done to others.

Also, a mitigating factor in the impact to others is whether the other party who is impacted by a decision had advance knowledge, the opportunity to influence or participate in the decision-making process, and who actively participated in carrying out the action that were the results of the decision.

I don't propose to address these issues immediately, merely to identify them as an area of consideration when evaluating the ethics of a decision.