Ethics in Social Context

Another extrapolation from Maslow is that action is motivated by the needs or interests of the actor, and that ethics is considered in terms of the impact of that action in terms of its consequence to other parties. In other words, ethics is not primarily concerned with the self-interest of the actor.

It is expected that a person will act in pursuit of their own values, and in instances where there is no consequence to any other party, ethics does not apply. When a person is motivated by their own hunger to eat, the act of eating is not of any ethical significance whatsoever – it is merely the satisfaction of his own needs, of consequence to no other party.

That is not to say that any benefit to self is to be excluded or discounted from consideration. The fact that the act of eating renders a benefit to the actor remains as a motivation to act. The decision is still rational, and it is practical, but the lack of benefit or detriment to another party makes it of negligible interest to ethics.

Ethics is concerned with the social context of action – the consequences of an action to other parties. I cannot go so far as to say “to society,” as “society” lacks definition and includes parties for whom an action has no consequences. And again, if there are no consequences, there is nothing for ethics to consider in determining the nature of the action in terms of good or evil.

It’s also noted that needs are taken for granted, and a motivation to fill a need is presumed. This is the rationale for action, which is of key interest to ethics. It seems pointless to apply reason to evaluate an action that is not the result of a reasoned decision, though ethics may castigate the neglect of considering consequences before undertaking action.

It is also presumed that some action will be taken to address a need. A person who is hungry will seek to satisfy that need by eating, a prerequisite of which is obtaining food. In such an instance, ethics is not primarily concerned with the satisfaction of the need for the actor (to eat being neutral), but with the actions undertaken in obtaining food, insofar as they affect other parties.

That is to say that the person will eat, as a practical matter, and the function of ethics is to help him to identify the course of action, among the various possibilities, by which he will satisfy this requirement. It is the means, rather than the action, that are evaluated with the intention of making a rational decision, given that the individual is motivated to undertake some form of action to fill that need.

And to return to the original point, that if the action an individual undertakes to fill a need has no impact on any other party, his actions are of no interest to ethics.

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.