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.

Prioritizing the Benefit to Others

When an individual acts in self-interests, the prioritization of his interests is weighted according to the immediacy of benefit to self. When an individual acts in the interest of other parties, there are two considerations to be made: the level of benefit to a given party and the choice of one party's benefits over another's.

The first consideration, the choice among benefits to a single party, would seem to be easily resolved, as the same method of prioritization can be applied: if your intention is to benefit a starving man, his needs are best addressed by a meal. Giving him "job training" to improve his lot may be argued to have a greater long-term impact on alleviating his condition, by better equipping him to serve his future needs (second-level security need) but his immediate condition (first-level survival need) is of greater importance.

The second consideration, determining which of multiple others is to be served, seems more arbitrary: the need of a person five feet away is no greater or less than that of a person five thousand miles away. The choice to help the closer party is often a practical matter: it is easier. And while the easy choice is not necessarily the most ethical, it is often the most efficient. To provide assistance to a party at a distance requires transportation (the cost of which may make the donation impracticable), transportation will take time (by the time help arrives, it may no longer be needed), etc. The impact upon ethics is in the effect of distance upon the conditions and probable consequences of the decision.

When it is just as practical to serve the needs of one party as the needs of another, it becomes a question of the actor's own values. In particular, the benefit to others may be regarded as a third-level of fourth-level benefit to self.

The third-level benefit to self is service to social needs, and it seems rational that the greater the service to self, the more one is vested in the interests of the other party. Hence, a person is more likely to act in the interests of a member of their immediate family than a stranger, a member of their community rather than an outsider, a member of their own country than an immigrant. This is not merely an emotional decision, but a rational one, in that the benefit is to bestowed upon a "closer" party because the actor has greater personal interest in their welfare, in that the relationship with that person has greater potential future value to self.

The fourth-level benefit to self is an interest in gaining esteem, which is very often the unspoken motive behind charitable or altruistic actions. A person provides benefits to others so that other individuals (including, but not limited to, the individual to whom they granted the benefit) will be more inclined to regard them as a noble person and worthy of their deference. This is evident in the desire to be charitable in a conspicuous way - not merely to perform an act of charity, but to make it known to others that they have acted charitably, and therefore to grant them the esteem that was the self-serving motive of being charitable.

The exception would seem to be an anonymous donation that benefits others, but my sense is this is still related to gaining esteem - only in this instance, it is self-esteem. It is not important to others to recognize the charitable action, but the individual experiences positive feelings about themselves for having undertaken a charitable action. In the absence of any other benefit to self, charitable action is valued because it "feels good" to be charitable, regardless of whether the action actually benefited anyone else. This phenomenon explains why so many people donate to charity without checking to see that the funds they donate are being used for the purpose for which they were provided - they have reaped the reward of self-esteem, which was their prime motivation.

In acting for the benefits of others, an person who is rational and ethical will evaluate these various factors to come to a decision about which action to undertake, though my sense is there is quite a bit of interplay among the various factors. For example, if it is a choice between granting a benefit to a party that in a manner that would grant the actor greater esteem and a more distant one to who is in greater need, the consideration of the various factors may not be logically or mathematically precise.

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.