Causes of Ethical Failure

It is a simple matter, after the fact, to assess whether harm was done and accuse those who decided to act of having intended to create the outcome, or having failed to prevent it, of unethical behavior. While it may be entirely logical to conclude that the action caused harm, it cannot be taken for granted that this was the result of an ethical failure.

The notion of "ethical failure" is in contrast to the notion of "unethical behavior," in the same way that failing to act ethically is not to be equivocated with acting unethically - it is a false dichotomy. While it is not inconceivable that an individually would choose to act in an unethical manner, instances of unethical behavior are exceedingly rare, and it is often the result of poor analysis that one cannot identify the positive intention that precipitated negative consequences, and therefore assume the intentions were unethical.

Having considered the matter at some length, I have identified six causes of ethical failure. I don't expect that this is an exhaustive list, but it seems a good start:

1. Malicious Intent

The first cause of ethical failure as an intention to act in a way that causes harm. As noted above, this is a common accusation that seldom bears true, but the possibility that an individual would act with the sole intention of causing harm to others.

2. Ignorance

Ignorance is the cause of ethical failure when an action is undertaken without thoroughly examining the situation or considering the possible outcomes of the action. It seems to me that this is the most common cause of ethical failure, and the most difficult to address, given that human beings are not omniscient and cannot be expected to have perfect knowledge.

3. Indifference

Another cause of ethical failure is indifference, which primarily manifests itself as a disregard for the interests of third parties who may suffer harm as a result of the actions undertaken to generate a benefit for others. Indifference is differentiated from ignorance (above) in that the actor is aware that the action will cause harm, but proceeds regardless of this knowledge.

4. Prioritization Error

Errors of prioritization occur in situations in which an action has multiple impacts (benefits for some and damage to others) as well as opportunity costs (undertaking one action eliminates the possibility of undertaking others) and while the individual is neither ignorant of nor indifferent to the outcomes, an error is made in prioritization of the impacts.

5. Probability Error

In a situation in which outcomes are uncertain, and in which the actor has undertaken due diligence to identify the impact of an action, errors in the assessment of probability may occur. Generally, the potential for benefit is overestimated while the potential for harm is underestimated, and a decision to act is made upon a poor assessment of the probability of known outcomes.

6. Execution Error

Given that everything involved in the decision to act was attended, there remains the potential for errors to arise in the execution of a planned action. I am not entirely certain that this properly classified as a separate cause of ethical failure, or merely a temporal issue: if a decision to act is made, and new information is uncovered, is the insistence on pressing forward on the original plan a separate matter, or merely the discovery of an error at a later time (conditions have changed after the decision is made, but during the course of action).

***

Again, this is unlikely to be a comprehensive list of the causes of ethical failure, and each of these items bears more intensive consideration, but it's a fair start at exploring the notion of ethical failure.

Prioritization of Interests

Consideration of the hierarchy of needs as a basis for the prioritization of interests would suggest that the most ethical decision is driven by the utility to the lowest level of need. But I have a sense it’s not quite so simple.

When an individual makes a decision that has consequences only to himself, it is plausible to consider that the definite sacrifice of a higher priority in order to definitely achieve a lower priority is irrational. (To be considered separately: do ethics even apply in such a situation?) However, in advance of an action being undertaken, the outcomes are not definite, and the decision-maker must consider probability.

In that sense, an individual may perceive that the chances of success at serving the lower priority are such that it is worth the risk to the higher priority. For example, entry into many social groups (a third-level priority) require an individual to undergo an initiation that poses an immediate threat to their well-being (a first-level priority). In is not unusual, nor necessarily irrational, for an individual to accept that risk.

The risk involved in investing is of a similar nature: while both the amount risked and the amount gained are a second-level priority (wealth, as a means to satisfy future needs), an individual may assess that the benefit of increasing their wealth is worth the risk of the amount they risk in the investment.

When an individual makes a decision that has consequences to himself and another person, interests are viewed from the perspective of the decision maker. That is to say that a first-level priority of one party (their immediate need) is at best a third-level priority when the consequences to them is made by someone else (presuming they value their social connection to another party).

The ethics of survival puzzles generally play upon this principle: a person who has the authority an ability to decide on a disposition of a resource that is immediately needed for himself and another party, it is presumed that the inclination of the decision-maker is to serve his self-interest first. From a purely functional or purely psychological perspective, this may be entirely justified, but it is not necessarily acceptable from an ethical perspective.

When an individual makes a decision that has no consequences to himself, and the benefit or harm is only to other parties, similar factors are taken into consideration. When the benefit and harm are to be done to a single party, the decision-maker is to consider the value of each and the risks to be considered (in effect, to make as “good” a decision for the other party as he would for himself).

When the benefit is granted to one party at the expense of another, the decision-maker who is motivated entirely by self-interest can be expected to consider the value of each party to himself, and comes to a decision based on the value he places on his future relationship with each of the two parties. However, if the decision-maker has no existing relationship and expects to have no future relationship, his decision is arbitrary.

Much of this bears further consideration – but insofar as the prioritization of interests is concerned, it would seem acceptable to accept Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a basis for rational decision-making when the benefit and harm implicit in a decision pertain to a single party. However, it is not a complete answer to the dilemma faced by a decision-maker who is weighing consequences that benefit one party and harm another.