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.

Maslow Reconsidered

The primary problem in applying Maslow's hierarchy to ethics is that Maslow explores the motivations of the individual to act in his own benefit, whereas ethics most often considers the effect of actions upon others.

That said, there are a few aspects of Maslow's theory that seem compelling:

Primarily, that interests can be prioritized by a hierarchy, some being more important than others. This seems entirely rational, and has value to ethics in overcoming some to the problems inherent in binary systems of ethics - in which a consequence is labeled as good or bad without a sense of the degree of importance or impact.

Second, that the importance of an interest is relative to the achievement of a core value. In Maslow's hierarchy, it is clear that the chief "need" toward which an individual is motivated is life itself - in the sense of the survival of the individual. I have a sense that the same can be said of ethics - not only in the role that values play, but also in the identification of life itself as the root value, from which all other values are derived.

Third, and this is admittedly an indirect extrapolation, that the motivation of an individual to serve his own interests is entirely a matter of psychology that has little importance or interest to ethics. Said another way, ethics takes it for granted that an individual will act in his own interests, to serve his own needs, and that this is of no consequence to ethics. Instead, ethics focuses on the consequences of an action to others, and one of the chief ethical dilemmas is in considering when the harm done to others is justified by the benefit to self.

Each of these three aspects merit further consideration.

Maslow's Hierarchy

I've been stewing over the previous post and have found it difficult to proceed further along the topic without more detailed consideration of needs, desires, and interests. Unable to define them from a purely philosophical perspective, I defer to psychology.

It merits mention that philosophy and psychology are closely inter-related, such that one often intrudes on the other, and generally, the consequences are less than optimal (a psychologist's take on philosophy, and vice-versa, tend to be sloppy and inaccurate), and so it's important to state that my intent here is not to redefine psychology, but borrow upon it until a purely philosophical answer can be found.

Even so, it cannot be borrowed without some modification. Primarily, Maslow's theory is considered to be a hierarchy of needs, and I find that the distinction of "need" from "desire" is hazy at best, and moreover, it is of no consequence to ethics. And so, my intent is to translate Maslow's hierarchy of needs into a hierarchy of interests, and set aside the classification of an interest as a need or a desire.

Maslow's theory was that there are a broad array of human needs that can be depicted as a hierarchy, such that the lowest level of need is of primary interest to the individual, and that it is generally the case that the individual will be inclined to fill his lowest level of need before seeking to fulfill needs on a higher level.

This would translate to the subject of ethics as the motivation to serve an interest (or "satisfy a need"), and to prioritize certain interests over others (addressing basic needs before seeking to fulfill higher ones).

The lowest level of the hierarchy, hence the highest level of priority to motivation, are "physiological" needs, which arise from the immediate necessity of sustaining life: the need to eat, drink, breathe, sleep, and react to medical emergencies that pose immediate threat to life and well-being. The needs at this level can be further prioritized by their immediacy: the need to breathe being more pressing than the need to eat.

At the next level are the needs that Maslow considered to be essential to safety and security. These are still based on physiological needs, but seek to fulfill future needs rather than immediate ones: the need to avoid injury or treat medical conditions that are not an immediate threat, the need to establish stores of food and water for future consumption, etc.

The next level are social needs, which are also derived from physiological needs, but in the context of other people. Specifically, the individual is motivated to enter into relationships with others that will help him to fulfill his future needs more efficiently: family, neighbors, community, employer, etc. It is at this level that the motivation begins to become blurred, as psychology insists that an individual has a "need" to belong to social units that is not directly related to his ability to fulfill his physiological needs.

The next level of needs pertain to esteem, which is a purely psychological consideration. This deals with the emotional fulfillment of the individual: self-esteem, the respect of others, confidence in his abilities, and a sense of achievement.

The highest level of needs pertain to self-actualization: the development of abilities that did not previously exist, and are not directly related to physiological needs. Though it seems to me that this is related to esteem (a person gains abilities to increase the same factors, respect, confidence, sense of achievement), I may be overlooking the reason for differentiating them.

From a perspective of ethics, the first three levels of Maslow's hierarchy are acceptable in their objectivity. I do not think it could be argued that these "needs" represent genuine and objectively valid motivations.

However, the purely psychological elements of the highest two levels (and the psychological rather than physiological element of the third) are more difficult to accept as a basis for objective evaluation. I don't dispute that humans are motivated by such things, but find it difficult to include them in objective assessment of interests as they are tautologies (a person desires to belong to a group simply because they desire to belong to a group).

Borrowing upon Maslow's hierarchy, I will accept for the time being that there are four "levels" of interest, in order of highest to lowest priority:

1. Interests that are served in order to satisfy immediate physiological needs
2. Interests that are served in order to directly impact the ability to meet future physiological needs
3. Interests that are served in order to directly impact the ability to meet future physiological needs by means of others
4. Interests that are served for reasons unrelated to physiological needs

I have a sense that this will hold up under a liberal amount of scrutiny, and will suffice for the evaluation of ethics in most situations.

Motivation and Benefit

Previous consideration of action has implied, but may not have directly stated, that actions are undertaken out of a desire to effect a change in conditions. It also seems reasonable to assert that this desire is to effect a change that will result in an improvement of benefit to a certain party.

While this does not discount the possibility that the motivation might be to have a negative or detrimental effect, my sense is that this is seldom (if ever) the motivation of a rational individual - rather, that the negative consequences of an action are side effects rather than the primary motivation.

The benefit to a certain party is also of significance: it is unlikely that there exists an outcome that is universally positive. At best, it will have a positive effect for some, and no appreciable effect upon others. In some instances, generating a positive effect for some may be damaging to others.

This merits consideration, but is beyond the scope of the present consideration: that in assessing ethics, we must account for the complete scope of consequences for all parties that are affected, but the motivation to undertake an action is specific to the interests of a given party.

Germane to the present consideration: what constitutes a benefit? Chiefly benefits are consider in the positive effect on the party under consideration, but a decision may also be motivated by the desire to avoid negative effects. This seems an important distinction, but the effect on motivation are fundamentally the same: whether it is to achieve something "new" or perpetuate the status quo, it is still a benefit.

There also seems to be some distinction between need and desire, though this often falls along the same lines, with a "need" being defined as a motivation to perpetuate the status quo and a "desire" being defined as a motivation to effect a beneficial change to the status quo. Again, there appears to be little difference to motivation.

There also seems to be the sense that a "need" is more pressing than a "desire," and therefore to be automatically granted a higher degree of importance as a motivational factor. My sense is that this is a matter of psychology rather than philosophy - and while it may merit consideration, the two still remain equivalent in the consideration of ethics.

It's also worth noting that benefit and detriment remain subjective concepts - though my sense is that it should be fairly straightforward to classify a specific outcome as good or bad, and that people will generally be in agreement, this remains entirely subjective and shallow in its consideration.

In the end, it seems this meditation has yielded more questions than answers.

Relationships

Another notion that adds complexity to evaluating business transactions is the notion of the "relationship" - specifically, it is possible for a transaction to take place in isolation (a one-time sale to a customer with whom the business will never interact again), but it is more common for transactions to be done in the context of an ongoing relationship (the business sells to the same customers, again and again, over time).

The notion of relationship is important to both parties. It is convenient and efficient, for a customer to be able to obtain the same good from the same vendor, and for a business to sell to repeat customers. However, it is more important from the perspective of a business, as future sales ensure the perpetuation of the organization, which is a tacit goal of most organizations.

I would also posit that it is beneficial to ensuring the consideration of ethics: a business that seeks to make repeated sales, over time, can generally be counted on to treat its customers better than a fly-by-night operation. The latter seeks to have a single interaction, as it has no future interest in the consequences to the customer of the present transaction, whereas the former realizes it must satisfy the customer as a means of obtaining their future business.

One of the weaknesses I have noticed in many studies of this topic is a narrow focus on the immediate transaction, without consideration of the long-term interests of both the customer and the business. The limitation of this consideration is not invalid, and is in fact appropriate for a one-time transaction - but my sense is that this is less common than having an ongoing relationship.

I also have the sense that this is a relatively recent consideration: especially in the field of marketing, the notion of an ongoing relationship seems to be a relatively recent one - or perhaps the popularity of the notion is only increased of late, as it seems to be that many people in business have considered relationships long before it was fashionable to do so. As such, the notion of relationship and its impact on ethics may be a largely unexplored topic.

Transactions

Thus far, the notion of "action" has largely been considered as precipitating from the independent decision of a single party. However, the context of business is a social one, and seldom ever involves a single party's decision to undertake an action without considering the expected actions of others.

A decision is made to sell a good, but this is based on the expectations that others will decide to purchase it. Hence the decision to sell must consider the factors that are taken into account in the decision to purchase, which is made by another party. In this sense, the action of the business is influenced by the perceived future action of the intended customer.

The same can be said of virtually any action undertaken by a business - and "virtually" is a concession to the possibility that there may be some action that is taken independently, though I am presently unable to conceive of such a thing.

The transactional nature of business adds yet another level of complexity to the consideration of ethics in this context: when an item is offered for sale, and it is assessed that the selling of the item is unethical, is the ethical failure to be ascribed to the business that decided to sell the item or the customer who decided to purchase it?

My sense is that this is an important consideration, and is inherent in most real-world situations in which the subject of ethics is raised. However, for the present, I feel it's necessary to separate the two decisions - to treat the decision to sell and the decision to buy as two separate decisions, each of which is made by a different party, each of which must be considered in and of itself.

There are dependencies between them, but it becomes a chicken-and-egg argument: would the customer decide to buy if the item were not for sale, or would the business decided to sell if there were no consumer demand? My sense is that either may be considered true, depending on context.

Tasks in the Context of Action

This post began with another attempt to define the "roles" related to an action, but evolved into defining the tasks that are necessary to perform an action, according to its separate elements (situation, decision, action, and consequences). There may be some misuse of terms remaining in the information that follows.

Situation

When considering a given action, the roles in creating the situation seem to be little importance. To the decision, the situation is accepted as status quo - it exists independent of the decision at hand. However, there may be instances in which the preceding conditions have been created of affected by previous actions.

Even then, the present decision is unable to influence the situation, but the situation has a strong influence of the decision. But an individual who wishes to influence a decision may undertake actions for the sole purpose of influencing the decision.

The ethics of such actions are a separate consideration from the decision - specifically, the decision-maker does not "cause" a person to take action in advance of a decision, but it is rather the choice of the other party to undertake an independent action with a primary intention of affecting the decision to be made.

It can also be said that the application of formal authority is an attempt to modify the situation. The promise of reward or threat of punishment is a pre-existing condition of the decision, which is taken into account in the same manner as any other pre-existing condition. Whether the reward or punishment is actually administered is a consequence, and a separate decision of the influencer ... and for that matter, the decision to communicate a threat or promise is also a separate decision, made by the influencer.

There is also the potential to exert influence over a decision by misleading the decision-maker as to the nature of the situation. The action undertaken to mislead a person is separate from the decision, and the level of confidence a decision-maker places on a false representation (whether he should have trusted the report) merit further consideration, as does the question of whether a person who provides this information can be entirely objective.

Decision

The decision is a critical element in ethics: the individual who makes a decision is considered to take primary responsibility for the consequences of his decision. My sense is that there is one decision-maker for any given decision, and that the notion of a "group decision" is false, as the decision is made by one party, though others may participate in the process. I expect this to be argued, as the notion of a "group decision" is common - but this will be considered at another time.

Aside of providing information to the decision, which is addressed as part of the situation, there are individuals who attempt to influence the decision by participation in the decision-making process: suggesting the logic that should be applied, predicting the possible consequences, and otherwise providing information that is taken into account by the decision-maker.

Before the decision is put into action, there is a process of approval, in which other parties affirm the decision and indicate a willingness to commit resources to its execution. The latter is significant, as a decision is not made merely "to decide" but with the goal that the action decided upon will be undertaken, hence the refusal of any essential party to commit to the decision, and commit required resources to its execution, have significant influence over the decision-maker.

Action

Especially in organizational ethics, the individual who executes an action and the individual who makes the decision to act are often two different parties. The responsibility for the consequences is often shared between these two roles, though there is some argument over the degree to which responsibility applies.

In instances where the actor executes upon a decision made by another party, the ethics of his participation are primarily derived from his independent decision to comply with the orders he has been given. Compliance with an order does not usually exonerate the actor from bearing responsibility for the consequences, though it is generally considered to be a mitigating factor.

It's also worth noting that executing on a decision often requires additional decisions to be made. An order to build a bridge necessitates the executive to determine its design, obtain the materials, and coordinate the labor. These decisions may precipitate from his orders, but they are to be considered separate from the decision involved in issuing the order.

It's also worth noting that the decision to act is not made in an instant. There are few instances in which a commitment to undertake an action precludes the ability of an actor to cease activity at any time after it has begun. More often, there are constant opportunities to revisit the decision to act, and to desist in the course of action.

To return to the earlier concept of plurality, a group activity seems more plausible than a group decision - the members of a work crew much each contribute effort to achieve a goal. However, the decision of each member of the crew to apply himself to the execution of an action is an independent decision that he, alone, makes. In this regard, I presently make no distinction between an actor and an assistant, though I concede that additional consideration may discover significant differences in future.

Consequences

While I don't discount the possibility that there may be a role pertaining to the consequences of an action, I cannot immediately conceive of one. It would seem that the ability of the decision-maker and the actors to effect the consequences of an action are done during the time when the decision is being made and the actions are being undertaken. Once these have been done, the consequences are what they are.

The consequences of an action may necessitate further actions to be undertaken. This is of particular interest when the consequences are to be mitigated in arrears of an action that has caused harm or damage to be done, and there is said to be a responsibility to effect indemnity. But this becomes a separate decision, and a separate action.

However, in predicting the consequences of an action, it may be discovered that additional actions should be taken to guide the action or mitigate the consequences. The key difference is that this is done in advance of the action, rather than in arrears. An in that sense, any decision to include additional activities in a given action are part of the decision, rather than part of the consequences.

And in that sense, a person who provides information to the decision-maker about the possible consequences of an action that is under consideration is not acting in the context of the consequences, but is providing information in advance of the decision.

Even so, my sense is that isolating the task of assessing the consequences should be separated. While the implication is that the assessment will provide input into future decisions, the task itself is done in the context of the consequences, and possibly without an immediate intent to provide information to a specific future decision. I may revisit that later, but for the present, I will accept it as a "role."

Summation

In the consideration of the elements of action, a handful of tasks have been defined:

• Analyzing the situation
• Making the decision
• Influencing the decision
• Approving the decision
• Performing the action
• Assessing the consequences

Admittedly, I've switched channels from defining roles to defining tasks. My sense is that a "role" may include one or more of these tasks, and that the definition of roles may be arbitrary.