Categorization of Consequences

In considering the consequences of an action to self versus to others, there seem to be nine possible outcomes when comparing the consequences to self to the consequences to others, which can be schematized thus:

	Benefit Others	No Consequence	Harm Others
Benefit Self	Benevolent	Self-Interested	Questionable
No Consequence	Charitable	Inconsequential	Sociopathic
Harm Self	Altruistic	Sacrificial	Irrational

As a note, I'm not sure if the labels I've given to these categories are entirely accurate, but found that attempting to use some neutral indicator was either verbose ("actions that benefit the self while having no consequence to others") or incomprehensible ("Type BN" or "Type 2"). This may bear further consideration - but for the present, the intention is to consider the interplay of the outcomes.

And while it's been noted before, it bears repeating that "no consequence" is shorthand for "no significant consequence," in that all actions have some consequence, but the consequence has no significance under most circumstances.

I've considered the merits of considering each of these nine categories, in and of themselves, but have decided not to do so at the present time. It seems a bit overly oriented with details that may be inconsequential. I may change my mind about that later, but for now:

Actions that have no consequences for any party, called "inconsequential" in the table above, do not merit further inquiry. An action that has no consequence cannot be assessed as good or bad, but might reasonably be called a waste of time and resources. Perhaps the only interest to ethics is the choice of an inconsequential action over a beneficial alternative, but even that seems of little interest

Actions that have a benefit to one or both parties (benevolent, charitable, or self-interested) but cause no harm to anyone are likewise of little interest to ethics: one can conclude that the action is "good" without the need to meditate upon it further.

Actions that harm one or both parties (sacrificial, sociopathic, or irrational) but precipitate no benefit for anyone are likewise of little interest to ethics: one can conclude that the action is "bad" without the need to meditate upon it further.

The altruistic action, which harms self and benefits others, merits some consideration. However, even this is of limited interest to ethics, as the decision is entered into freely by the actor, who is just as entitled to act to his own detriment as he is to act in his own benefit. In situations where a third party attempts to manipulate or deceive an individual into harming himself for their benefit, ethics is applied to the action of manipulation or deceit separate from the altruistic action.

The category of greatest interest to ethics are those actions deemed questionable - where an actor seeks to benefit himself and accepts that there are negative consequences to others. The degree to which this is acceptable or unacceptable to ethics is largely a matter of degree. By the strictest application of ethics, a person is required to do no harm to others, even if this means foregoing any benefit he might gain by doing so. By a more liberal interpretation, a person may be forgiven for the harm to others if the harm done is of lesser degree than the benefit - but even in that interpretation, it is conceded that the action is essentially unethical.

Motivation to Act for the Benefit of Others

Given that action is motivated by the desire to effect a benefit and that it can be taken for granted that an individual will act in self-interest, there remains the potential for an individual to act to effect a benefit for others.

There seems to be an imperative in Western culture to act for the benefits of others. This quality is evident much of historical philosophy and the contemporary philosophy that derives from historical bases. Much of which seeks to define ethics in a societal rather than a social context - the difference being that a "societal" approach to ethics considers the individual as having less value than the group and must therefore self-sacrifice for the benefit of others, whereas the "social" approach to ethics acknowledges that an individual is entitled to act for his own benefit but consider any negative impact to others as undesirable consequence.

Likewise, there is a notion that a truly altruistic person disregards their own needs and safety in order that their actions might benefit other parties - often vaguely defined as a "society" to which he is subordinate. This strikes me as a hollow notion, and one most often used in an unethical manner: to subordinate others to the service of an imaginary group (mainly, the church or the state) in order to skew their logic to serve the purpose of the individual to serving the interests of whomever is seeking to motivate/manipulate them.

Proponents of societal ethics tend to represent social ethics as being opposed to society - that acting in self-interest is done with disregard for the welfare of others - and therefore an individual who does not subordinate themselves to service of the society is anti-social, perhaps even to the degree of being sociopathic or seeking primarily to harm others. This is propaganda.

The social approach to ethics accepts that individuals will act in their own interests, but includes the benefit of others as a benefit to self, and proposes an ethic of action that does not necessarily exclude service to others or disregard their welfare. Considering that the motivation of the individual stems from the needs of the individual, any "other" party may be considered as a third- or fourth- level need of the self.

Returning to Maslow, the higher-level needs that an individual is motivated to serve derive from their interaction and relationship with other individuals.

A third-level need, called a "social" need recognizes that man is a social creature, and is motivated to pursue mutually-beneficial relationships with other individuals (who are expected to be motivated by the mutually-beneficial nature of the relationship). The mutually-beneficial nature of the relationship is key to the motivation of the individual: if there is a social connection from which the individual receives no benefit, there is no motivation to establish and preserve that relationship.

The fourth-level need, called an "esteem" need, is also evident in a social context: the desire to gain esteem exists only within a social context. This is achieved only though service to others, as "esteem" is granted to members of a group who are seen to be of greatest service to the group. There is therefore a motivation for an individual to act in ways that achieve benefits to others.

The fifth-level needs tend to be vaguely defined, but they also strike me as being social in nature: a person is "actualized" in their growth within a society and the positive impact they have upon it. In a loose sense, it can be said that a person is motivated to reap the psychological rewards of acting to achieve a "better world" in a sense that is related to long-term benefits and large-scale impact.

The main difference between societal ethics and social ethics is that, in societal ethics, Maslow's hierarchy is inverted (or perhaps subverted) to suggest that the individual must first seek to achieve a "better world" before concerning himself with his basic (survival) needs, whereas in social ethics, the good of society is a recognized as a need, but is prioritized at the proper level of interest: an individual is motivated to act in the interest of his own survival before acting to achieve the higher-level goals, which is in line with Maslow's theory.

Entitlement of the Actor

Having considered the potential positive and negative consequences of an action to the actor himself, it has been concluded that an action that has no consequences for any other party is not within the scope of ethics to evaluate.

There is, however, a precipitating (or perhaps underlying) premise: that an individual is entitled to undertake action in his own welfare, which include undertaking actions that may ultimately be detrimental to his own welfare.

Objectively, it may seem that there are situations in which another party may wish to intervene in order to prevent an individual from undertaking action that poses a threat to his own welfare, or even to compel an individual to undertake an action that would improve his own welfare, but intervention is ethically questionable, as any party other than the actor does not have sufficient knowledge of the intentions of the actor and is likely to be mistaken about whether the action in question is intended to be beneficial or harmful to the actor.

In situations where another party's own welfare is at stake, the desire to restrict the actions of others can be based in a desire to defend against a threat to their own welfare. As such, the act of intervention is pursuit of personal interest, in which instance the person who means to intervene must consider the ethics of their own (intervening) action.

In situations where this other party's interests are not at stake, there is no justification for intervening. There remains an emotional motivation to act, the notion that another party will feel a sense of regret at their failure to have intervened, but emotion is no basis for logic (though again, it may in some instances be a cue that the logic bears greater scrutiny), nor are the consequences of not acting to be equivocated with the consequences of undertaking to act.

Actions that Harm the Actor

In the previous post, actions that have consequences only to the actor were considered to be ethically neutral. However, this was considered only in the positive perspective: actions that have benefits to the actor. It may be interesting to consider this in a negative perspective as well: if an individual undertakes an action that harms only himself, is this ethical?

This is not an expected behavior: that a person might act in order to do harm to himself seems absurd and irrational, and is one of the key criteria by which a person is to be declared insane by the standards of psychology. At yet, it is within the realm of possibility.

Strictly speaking, if the harm a person does to himself is of no consequence to any other party, this action remains beyond the scope of ethics. However, returning to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, our social connections to others may be perceived as a third-level need of our own. Therefore, by harming himself, the individual may also be creating a consequence to other parties, and the action is no longer beyond the scope of ethics: a person who harms oneself is to do harm to those who are dependent on their social connection to that person.

It that sense, the action of doing harm to self has a consequence of doing harm to others. If no benefit is to be achieved by harming oneself, then the action is entirely negative, hence unethical.

One question that precipitates is: whether others are obliged or even entitled to intervene in a situation where a person seems to be acting in a way that is harmful to himself. The difficulty in accepting this obligation as a necessity is that the perception may be incorrect.

There are situations in which a person may seem to be acting in a way that is harmful to self to an observer who is unaware of the actor’s intentions. For example, if an individual is seen to be throwing away food – tossing grain into the dirt – it is likely his intention is not what is immediately apparent (to waste food that is essential to his first-level survival needs), but to achieve a different objection (to sow seeds as a means to grow food for his future survival needs). In that way, intervention is a presumption on the part of one person that they know the full intent of another individuals actions.

When there is a social connection between individuals, the motivation of another person to intervene for the welfare of another person seems reasonable, though there remains an obligation to be diligent in ensuring that the intent of the action is understood. But even then, there remains the liklihood that the person who seeks to intervene is putting their own interests before those of the other party.

When there is no social connection between the individuals, the motivation of the other person to intervene is less defensible. Even when it is well-intentioned, it is an interference in the lives of others without any rational justification for doing so. To suggest that a person is entitled to interfere with the lives of others with whom they have no connection may be arguable, but this strikes me as a matter of politics.

Another question that precipitates is: whether an individual is obliged to undertake action that is detrimental to themselves for the benefit of other parties. That is to say, when the welfare of one party is considered to be more important than that of another, and the latter is ethically required to self-sacrifice for the welfare of those who are better or more deserving than himself.

At face value, this is an deplorable notion, that is often at the basis of exploitation: the slave, being less important than the master, is to be held to self-sacrifice for the welfare of his master. But at the same time, it is said to be honorable of an individual to self-sacrifice for the welfare of others. I strongly suspect that this is the machination of those who wish to create a situation in which others are expected to sacrifice for their welfare, and to promulgate such an action as noble or honorable is propaganda. However, I’ll avoid accepting that as a firm conclusion until such time as I have put further consideration into the conflict of interests between multiple parties.

For the present, I believe that I can rest in the conclusion that an action that causes harm only to the actor is beyond the scope of ethics, that the obligation or entitlement to intervene is a separate matter, and the obligation to self-sacrifice another still.