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.

Activities of an Organization

Another hypothesis that bears consideration (see original post) is that an organization does not make any decision to act, nor undertake any action as an organization. The same can be said of business: the business itself does not decide or act. Decisions and actions of the individuals who compose the business decide or to act, and not all decisions or actions are made in interests of the business.

The interests that drive a decision, then, may be considered as a differentiating factor: if the intention of a decision to act is made with the intention of accomplishing a purpose that serves the interests of the business, rather than those of the individual making the decision, then the activities that precipitate from that decision can be considered to be "business activities."

However, that alone seems insufficient. There is some danger in assigning responsibility for an action to an individual or entity simply because they derive a benefit from that action. The example that comes to mind is in a charitable donation of funds that were gained by an unethical activity - are those that are benefited by the donation to be held accountable for the activities that generated the funds donated to them? This seems unreasonable, in that they had no part in making the decision of how the funds were generated.

It seems to me that authorization is also a factor, and is likely more important a factor than the receipt of benefits. If a charitable institution engaged in unethical activities to raise funds to support its operations, then it is to be held responsible for the decision to undertake those activities. It might also be suggested that if the institution encouraged others to undertake those actions for its benefit, it is to some degree responsible for providing that motivation.

But this runs afoul of the premise: that the institution does not decide or act, but certain individuals within the organization have made the decision to decide or act. And while the decision was made in the context of the institution, and for the benefit of the institution, the responsibility for the decision rests with an individual.

And the argument at this point comes full circle, because the individual who made the decision to participate in or encourage others to undertake an unethical action was motivated to do so to his desire to achieve some benefit for the institution.

I don't think that this has been fully explored, but it seem to be pointed toward the conclusion that the actions undertaken to achieve a certain goal can be said to be related from, or even to originate directly from, that goal. Hence any decision made to benefit a business precipitates actions that can be called "business activities."

This seems a matter of classification that may have no direct bearing on ethical responsibility: the decision-maker rather than the benefactor is responsible for the ethics of a decision, though it may be said that it is for the sake of the benefactor that the decision was made.

Does an Organization Decide?

This seems fairly straightforward, and brings to light a significant concept: that an organization is not an actor, in the sense previously discussed. That is to say that the organization itself does not undertake any action or make any decision. It is the individuals within the organization who decide and act.

And this is the source of inaccuracy: if one suggests that the organization has made a decision, this obscures the fact that the decision was made by a person. Others within the organization may attempt to have input into or influence a decision, still others may agree or consent to the decision, and still others may undertake action to effect the decision - but the fact remains that the decision is not made by the organization, but an individual.

I would also suspect it to be true that a decision made by an individual within an organization is not universally accepted by all members of that organization. Some may oppose rather than support it, and a great many others may be unaware of it and wholly uninvolved.

And so, an "organization" can be seen as an effect of a purpose. The people and physical artifacts that the organization comprises are means to achieving its end. This may bear further consideration.

It also seems reasonable to suggest that an organization influences the decision-making process of its members, in that self-interest is replaced by the interests or goals of the organization as the driving force behind each decision to act.

However, organizations are often held liable, in a legal and political sense, for any action undertaken by a person who is identified as a member of that organization, even if the action is not motivated by the purpose of the organization. This seems a separate topic, to be explored later.

There is also the dynamic of people working in groups: not only are decisions influenced by the common purpose, but they are negotiated with and influenced by others with whom the decision-maker interacts. There are internal considerations - such as whether a decision will be accepted by other members of the organization, and whether they will support or resist the decision, whether they will assist in effecting it, and whether they will reward or punish the decision-maker or those who act in support of the decision. But to be clear, each of these actions is undertaken by an individual, not "the organization."

So it is the task of each individual within the organization to decide and act - and the suggestion that "the organization" makes decisions and undertakes actions is inaccurate.

Ethics of Consequences

In the context of action, it was concluded that an action is not ethical in and of itself, but the consequences of that action provoke a consideration of the ethics. In a fundamental sense, an ethical evaluation assesses the consequences of an action were good or bad - and from there, to work backward: if the consequences were good, the action was good.

It is possible to take another step backward: consequences arise from actions, which arise from decisions. In fact, it seems essential to do so. If ethics focuses entirely on actions that have already been taken, it has no value in guiding behavior. That is not to say that there is no point in analyzing pas actions: while the past cannot be changed, the lessons taken from it provide guidance for future decisions, which is the value of ethics.

It is also possible to take a second step backward: consequences arise from actions, which arise from decisions, which are made by people. This returns to the previous question of whether a person can be considered to be ethical, but arrives at the same tautology that led me to dismiss "person" as the subject of evaluation: a good person makes good decisions, which might imply that every decision made by a good person is a good decision.

While there remains the concept of the "good person," my sense is this is useful evaluation, as social existence depends on trust, and trust is earned over time by an individual who makes good decisions (based on the notion that a person's character guides them to act in a consistently good or bad manner) - but this bears further consideration. For the present, we focus on consequences, as each decision to act may be good or bad, independent of the person who makes that decision (i.e., a good person does not always make good decisions, but may make a bad decision, hence the good or bad rests in the decision, and not the person).

It must also be acknowledge that, thus far, "good" and "bad" have been considered in an overly vague and general sense. It is presumed that a positive or beneficial outcome is "good" whereas a negative or harmful outcome is "bad." It seems to me that these concepts are far more complex than that, but I will continue along that line of logic and return to the "essence" of good/bad at a later time.

So to revisit the second step backward: consequences arise from actions, which arise from decisions, which are made on the basis of motives. And while that seems logical, the chain of causation weakens: while we can consider the motives that drive a decision as a method for evaluating the ethics of the decision, the consequences of the action may not entirely jibe with the motives. That is to say that we can appreciate the desire to do good, but ultimately assess ethics not merely by the desire, but by the outcome. And even in evaluating decisions in advance of outcome, "good intentions" do not guarantee a good outcome, nor pardon the actor from any negative consequence of his action.