False Dichotomies

One of the key problems with many ethical systems is the acceptance of a false dichotomy: that one may do "right" or "wrong" and that there is no instance of an action that is neither right nor wrong. That is to say, no action is to be considered ethically neutral.

But it seems to me that there are situations in which ethics do not apply. Specifically, if an action is to be assessed by the beneficial or detrimental consequences, it follows that an action without consequences cannot be assessed as right or wrong by any standard of ethics.

While it is difficult to conceive of an action has no consequences whatsoever, it seems to me that there are actions where the consequences are so negligible that it is absurd to attempt to apply ethics. Without specifying additional conditions that would change the fundamental nature of the action, one cannot reasonably say that to stand or to sit is an "ethical" decision. There are no appreciable consequences of the action to anyone but the actor, and the consequences to the actor himself are negligible.

I have the sense, but am not prepared to state it emphatically as a conclusion, that any action that an individual undertakes that has no consequence to anyone but himself is beyond ethical consideration. That a person acts in their own benefit is to be expected. That a person may act in a way that harms himself is a less comfortable notion, but still seems to be beyond the scope of ethics. I will give this more thought.

Another problem with binary systems is that they assume man is faced with a choice of doing right or doing wrong. Aside of doing something that is neither right nor wrong, there is also the possibility that a man may not "do" anything at all. Ethics pertain to actions, and an action must be undertaken in order for ethics to apply.

This may be subject to greater debate. There is a popular notion that failure to do good is the equivalent of doing evil, or vice-versa. There are an infinite number of actions that might be undertaken at any given moment, and an individual's choice not to do any of them cannot be assessed as good (because he fails to choose any of the evil actions) or evil (because he fails to choose any of the good actions).

In this sense, inertia must be regarded as ethically neutral. An action that is not undertaken cannot be assessed as ethical or unethical, simply because no action has actually occurred, nor any consequence effected.

Said another way, ethics assesses the consequences of an action. If there is no action, or if there are no consequences to an action, ethics simply does not apply.

Right and Wrong: Fundamental Consideration

At this point, I think I have sufficient material to begin to consider the factors that make a decision "right" or "wrong" in terms of ethics.

An action that has only positive or beneficial consequences is to be considered "right" by the standards of ethics, and the decision to undertake such action is to be considered sound.

An action that has only negative or harmful consequences is to be considered "wrong" by the standards of ethics, and the decision to undertake such action is to be considered unsound.

These are very simplistic premises, and I expect that they will require revision as they are considered in greater detail, but I think that the fundamentals will hold.

If one considers all the consequences of an action, to all parties impacted by them, including any opportunity cost, and finds that they are universally beneficial or harmful, then it would be difficult to dispute the conclusion of whether the action, and the decision to undertake the action, is right or wrong.

The problem, of course, is that there are very few instances in which the outcome of an action is universally positive or negative. Given that a decision may lead to actions that have mixed consequences, the overall assessment of the right/wrong of the action involves a balance of positive and negative outcomes to arrive at an overall judgment of the soundness of the decision.

It's also worth noting that evaluating the outcomes of a single action is fundamental, but it is not the full scope of ethics. In many instances, there are multiple options for action - and at the very least, there are always two choices to be considered (to undertake an action or to refrain from doing so), and it would seem that ethics would require a decision-maker to undertake the option that is "best" in terms of its outcomes.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree with that premise - it implies that ethics is a reduced to the consideration of efficiency or productivity - and my sense is that it may be premature to begin pondering dilemmas, so I'll refrain from comparative considerations until another time, and keep focus on the ethics of a single action, with the concession that it is overly simplistic.