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.

Analysis of Action

As ethics pertains to action, it would seem to be of value to determine some of the roles of individuals who may be involved or affected by a decision, in a general sense. However, before taking that step, it’s necessary to further consider the notion of “an action.”

Action

At its most basic level, an action consists of an activity that can be expressed as a verb (to purchase, to sell, to manufacture, to transport). That’s not to state that the other elements (who acts, what they act upon, what is affected, the manner, etc.) are unimportant, merely that the “verb” is the essential element. My sense is it would also be an active verb, as a passive verb implies being the subject of an action undertaken by another party, and a verb that merely describes a condition (merely “to be”) is of little interest to ethics.

The activity has a limited duration: it begins and ceases at definite times. To carry a stone from one place to another begins when the stone is picked up, persists during the motion, and concludes when the stone is put down. One may niggle over the details of precisely when the action begins and precisely when it ends, but even this acknowledges the existence of a beginning and ending to an action.

The action may also consist of multiple activities that occur, which are generally but not necessarily simultaneous. In the example given, there are three activities: picking up the stone, transporting it, and putting it down again. This seems a bit overly concerned with self-evident details, but my sense is that it bears consideration in situations in which analysis could be affected by the failure to correctly “bundle” activities into a single action.

Metadiscourse: I need to work out the terminology here – action, activity, and act – it’s all getting a bit tangled up.

Decision

Before an activity is undertaken, there is a decision to act. While there is the notion of spontaneous action, my sense is that this is a largely a false notion: while a person may act on the spur of the moment, doing the first thing that comes to mind, this constitutes a decision to act upon the first thing that arises without further consideration. It could also be argued that some actions are entirely accidental and unintentional - and while I cannot presently dismiss that argument, it seems to me that the majority of actions are neither accidental nor intentional, but are undertaken with some intent.

However, the converse cannot said to be true: that every decision results in an action. This seems self-evident, but my sense is that considering a decision that results in no action may be a notion that leads to specious reasoning: specifically, in the equivocation of "not acting" to "acting." Even if there is deliberation, leading to the decision from refraining to take action, a decision has been made. And it seems to me that there are still ethical consequences of a decision not to act, but I have the sense that these cannot be considered the moral equivalent of deciding to act. I will need to reflect on this further at another time. For now, the point is that an action is proceeded by a decision.

It’s also worth noting that an activity may include multiple decisions.

Consequences

After an action is undertaken, there are consequences that result from the action being undertaken. In some way (in fact, in several ways), the situation has been changed by the action having been undertaken.

Ethics is keenly interested in the consequences of action. When an action is assessed, it is most often due to the consequences of that action. The root action of dropping a stone is neither ethical nor unethical, but if the stone is dropped in such a way that someone or something is damaged by it, we then consider whether the act was ethical. That is, the actor should or should not have undertaken the action, not because the action was good or bad in and of itself, but because the consequences were good or bad.

It’s also worth noting that evaluating the ethics of an action that was taken in the past is of limited use: the past cannot be altered, though it may serve as a lesson to be taken into consideration in future. It may also be as the basis for future actions (does an activity in the past necessitate activities in future), but this seems a separate matter.

Primarily, ethics is concerned with the consequences of future actions, as a method to evaluate whether an action that has not yet occurred should be undertaken. That is to say, that the usefulness of ethics is in guiding decisions to act.

Situation

It also occurs to me that the environment has an impact: the particular details of the situation in which a decision is made. The decision is an attempt to effect a change in conditions – therefore the "before" state that describes the situation prior to action is the status quo that an action affects to achieve the “after” state.

Conditions also affect the decision: an action that is considered to be “right” in some conditions may be considered “wrong” under others. To return to the root example, to drop a stone is of no consequence if the preceding conditions are that there is nothing in a position to be damaged.

The conditions that exist after an action are included in the consequences. Of greater concern are the preceding conditions, which must be taken into account when making a decision. It may be that these conditions should be included in the decision, but because the decision cannot affect the preceding conditions, it does not seem logical to package them.

Chronology

The order above seems arbitrary, more related to the logical relation of the concepts than the chronological order of the elements of action. To put this straight, the order would be:

1. Preceding Conditions
2. Decision
3. Action
4. Consequences

Because of the interdependency of these four elements, an ethical evaluation that omitted any of them would likely be incomplete.

Complexity of Action

In considering action and consequence, I have taken too narrow a consideration of actions - as if any single action is entirely an isolated phenomenon.

In some instances, I expect that there are unitary actions that can be considered in isolation, but in others, I expect that one action necessitates other actions. And just as ethics should consider all consequences of a given action, it should also include every action in a chain of events, or what may be considered to be a course of interconnected actions.

Most obviously, undertaking a given action may require other actions to be taken in advance of the action in question. The example of building a fire involves not only the act of igniting the fire, but also of gathering the material that is to be burned. IF these actions are not performed in advance, the action itself cannot be performed. And because they are performed for the sake of doing something else, the entire "bundle" of actions must be considered.

It also seems that there is a connection between an action and certain actions that follow it - but there is no strict causal connection. Given the same example (building a fire), it can be reasonably said that the actions of extinguishing the flame and disposing of the remains are actions that are related to the primary action, but there is no causal relationship between them (I cannot build a fire without gathering fuel, but I can certainly build a fire and not bother to dispose of the ashes afterward).

The sense that the following actions are necessary is a matter of ethics: that a person who starts a fire is to be held responsible for these other actions - specifically, that it is "right" of them to do so, and wrong of them to fail to do so. However, this is subject to argument: it is a matter of "should" rather than "must"

There may be instances in which a following action is strictly required, not merely a matter of expectation, though I cannot immediately think of an example that does not seem entirely ludicrous, and not entirely accurate (they are most often consequences than separate actions).

The concept of causation between an action and the action that follows it is quite often erroneous in this regard. It is (mis)used to justify undertaking an action because another action was taken. For example, the justification for retaliatory action (because they attacked us, we were compelled to attack them) suggests that the second party's attack on the first was inevitable, when in reality, it was a separate and independent decision (the retaliatory attack did not "have to" be made - the retaliator decided to undertake the return attach, and that decision is not bundled with the first, but merits a separate ethical deliberation).

And so, when considering an action, we must consider all other actions that are must be undertaken to perform that action as part of that action. Any action that should be undertaken, but is not strictly necessary, involves a separate decision, hence a separate evaluation, though it may have an impact on the evaluation of a primary action (if building a fire is deemed unethical because of the likelihood it will burn out of control, then accepting the separate action of tending the fire decreases this likelihood and diminishes the "wrongness" of the initial action).

False Dichotomies

One of the key problems with many ethical systems is the acceptance of a false dichotomy: that one may do "right" or "wrong" and that there is no instance of an action that is neither right nor wrong. That is to say, no action is to be considered ethically neutral.

But it seems to me that there are situations in which ethics do not apply. Specifically, if an action is to be assessed by the beneficial or detrimental consequences, it follows that an action without consequences cannot be assessed as right or wrong by any standard of ethics.

While it is difficult to conceive of an action has no consequences whatsoever, it seems to me that there are actions where the consequences are so negligible that it is absurd to attempt to apply ethics. Without specifying additional conditions that would change the fundamental nature of the action, one cannot reasonably say that to stand or to sit is an "ethical" decision. There are no appreciable consequences of the action to anyone but the actor, and the consequences to the actor himself are negligible.

I have the sense, but am not prepared to state it emphatically as a conclusion, that any action that an individual undertakes that has no consequence to anyone but himself is beyond ethical consideration. That a person acts in their own benefit is to be expected. That a person may act in a way that harms himself is a less comfortable notion, but still seems to be beyond the scope of ethics. I will give this more thought.

Another problem with binary systems is that they assume man is faced with a choice of doing right or doing wrong. Aside of doing something that is neither right nor wrong, there is also the possibility that a man may not "do" anything at all. Ethics pertain to actions, and an action must be undertaken in order for ethics to apply.

This may be subject to greater debate. There is a popular notion that failure to do good is the equivalent of doing evil, or vice-versa. There are an infinite number of actions that might be undertaken at any given moment, and an individual's choice not to do any of them cannot be assessed as good (because he fails to choose any of the evil actions) or evil (because he fails to choose any of the good actions).

In this sense, inertia must be regarded as ethically neutral. An action that is not undertaken cannot be assessed as ethical or unethical, simply because no action has actually occurred, nor any consequence effected.

Said another way, ethics assesses the consequences of an action. If there is no action, or if there are no consequences to an action, ethics simply does not apply.

Consequences: Opportunity Cost

The concept of opportunity cost has been implied, but not directly addressed, by previous posts. Specifically, the consequences of action may be situations that are caused by the action itself, but there is also the negation of other opportunities.

Using something for one purpose prevents its use for other purposes. Wood that is used to fuel a fire cannot be used to build a house - though when the situation is reversed, the wood used to build the house cannot be used to fuel a fire at that time, though the wood may be taken from the house and burned (but at some point, the amount of wood taken would cause the house to no longer exist).

When speaking in terms of commodities, the concept may seem a bit vague. Given a sufficient quantity of wood, some of it may be used to fuel a fire, and some of it may be used to build a house. And if the quantity is insufficient, one may seek out other wood to increase supply to satisfy both purposes. But at some level, "wood" becomes unique: a specific piece of wood can be used for only one of these purposes.

Sufficiency of supply is considered in terms of ethics, but it is also a concept that is of interest to economics: given the scarcity of supply, such that it is not possible for all who demand an item to have use of it, how is the determination made as to which party may use it.

This bears consideration, but not at the present time. For now, I will limit the consideration to a single individual, in possession of an item that will be consumed in undertaking an action, and who must consider that the consequences of his action include the unavailability of the item for other purposes.

Opportunity cost also applies to things that are not tangible - such as time. An individual who chooses to undertake a course of action that consumes time accepts, as part of that decision, that it will not be possible to spend his time doing other things.

In both senses, the decision of which course of action to pursue is to be assessed not merely by its direct outcomes, but by the elimination of other opportunities.

Ethics of Actions

In considering the context of action, it was considered that any "act" involves an actor, who takes an action, which has consequences. And after consideration, it was determined that the actor cannot be considered the source of ethics, any more than an inanimate object. This leaves action and consequence as the possible sources. The present post will consider the action.

The notion of separating action from consequence is not novel, but was considered by Immanuel Kant who, in The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), sought to define a "categorical proposition" - which, in plainer terms, is an action that is right in and of itself, and should thus be performed regardless of the consequences. He arrived at the conclusion that such a thing does not exist, and I do not presently intend to rehash or summarize his argument, merely to concede that this idea is not my own invention.

To return to the context of use, action is performed by an individual, but it is not performed merely to act, but to achieve an outcome from undertaking an action - which therefore leads to the sense that the action is incidental, and the consequences are to be considered, as they are the motivation that led to the action having been undertaken. Said another way, were it not for the consequences, the action would not have been undertaken.

It is also worth noting that an identical action may lead to different consequences under different circumstances. To slice with a knife is not considered unethical if the object beneath the blade is a loaf of bread, but it may be considered unethical if the object beneath the blade is a human being, and yet it may not be considered unethical if the person holding the knife is a surgeon performing a procedure on a patient, and again becomes unethical if the surgical procedure is unnecessary to aid the patient but is instead done as a justification to get money from his insurer. In each of these instances, there is no difference in the action, but in the consequences.

While it may seem that, by process of elimination, we have arrived at the conclusion that "consequences" are the basis of ethics, this notion bears further consideration.