Ethics and Values

I have accepted as a premise that the function of ethics is to guide action in consideration of the consequences: that an action that precipitates a positive consequence is good, and an action that achieves a negative consequence is bad, and that the evaluation of the ethics of the decision to act relies upon the whole of the consequences of that action. But this remains vague: the definition "good" and "bad" are unclear.

My sense is that "good" is related to the achievement of a value or a goal - and will for the present consider the two to be analogous, as goals precipitate from values. That an action achieves a goal is merely a question of practicality or efficiency, and as such the value from which that goal is derived is of the greater significance.

Returning to Maslow, the value of primary concern is life. Any action that preserves life is of the highest interest to an individual, and the more immediate the impact, the higher the priority of the interest. Upon further reflection it seemed that this could also be of service to ethics, as existence itself would precede the accomplishment of any other end.

When ethics is considered in the context of religion, the value of human life is subordinate to spiritual matters. This is still a consideration of man's existence, though in the non-corporeal form of a spirit or a soul. And in that context, the harm done to a person in their corporeal life is justified by the benefit that an action might have to the condition of their non-corporeal form.

I do not care to pursue that line of thought further, as it is not germane to the ethics of business, whose sole concern is the present reality rather than the notion of a non-corporeal existence, though it bears mentioning as a matter of differentiating the ethics of business from the ethics of religion, as well as the ethical considerations that an individual may choose to make for religious reasons.

And while it is my intention to hold "life" as the root of value, with all other values being derived from it, it's also worth mentioning that existence is not universally or eternally compelling. There may be instances in which the conditions of existence cause an individual to devalue existence and, specifically, to pursue its opposite.

The most common incidence of this inversion is considered in the context of health and wellness. Faced with a physical condition in which "to live" means an existence of torment and despair, it seems plausible that one may come to the conclusion that life holds no value and, instead, seek to put an end to one's own existence.

It is not my intent to explore that topic at this time. It may have special interest to the healthcare industry, but under normal circumstances, most decisions are made in a context where life is the primary value, and instances in which it is desirable to end one's existence constitute an unusual and exceptional set of circumstances that cannot provide guidance for decision-making outside of those situations.

Maslow Reconsidered

The primary problem in applying Maslow's hierarchy to ethics is that Maslow explores the motivations of the individual to act in his own benefit, whereas ethics most often considers the effect of actions upon others.

That said, there are a few aspects of Maslow's theory that seem compelling:

Primarily, that interests can be prioritized by a hierarchy, some being more important than others. This seems entirely rational, and has value to ethics in overcoming some to the problems inherent in binary systems of ethics - in which a consequence is labeled as good or bad without a sense of the degree of importance or impact.

Second, that the importance of an interest is relative to the achievement of a core value. In Maslow's hierarchy, it is clear that the chief "need" toward which an individual is motivated is life itself - in the sense of the survival of the individual. I have a sense that the same can be said of ethics - not only in the role that values play, but also in the identification of life itself as the root value, from which all other values are derived.

Third, and this is admittedly an indirect extrapolation, that the motivation of an individual to serve his own interests is entirely a matter of psychology that has little importance or interest to ethics. Said another way, ethics takes it for granted that an individual will act in his own interests, to serve his own needs, and that this is of no consequence to ethics. Instead, ethics focuses on the consequences of an action to others, and one of the chief ethical dilemmas is in considering when the harm done to others is justified by the benefit to self.

Each of these three aspects merit further consideration.