Change In Topics

It's been a couple of months, and I have yet to fully explore the concept of ethics. I expect that ethics, in and of itself, is a vast topic, and if I continue along these lines, it could be many more months before I get back to the intended topic of this blog: ethics in the context of business

So for the present, I'm going to switch topics. That's not to suggest that I've sufficiently explored ethics, but that I feel that I've devoted sufficient time to the task, and have a basis on which to build, and would like to get back on track.

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.

Purpose of Organization

I have defined "organization" is a group of people who have chosen to gather into a unit to fulfill a specific purpose. The previous post considered the nature of an organization as being composed of people, but left off at the concept of a purpose.

The concept of purpose is significant, in that the purpose of an organization drives the behavior of those who constitute the organization. Within any other group, there is no unity of action. Take the example of race: one can distinguish a group of people as belonging to a given race, and the people may even accept that they are members of that race, but the race has a purpose or agenda (though certain members claim as much so to encourage others to support their personal agenda), it is merely a category.

Likewise, the residents of a given neighborhood happen to live in the same defined geographic area, but are not necessarily an organization. They may have certain interests in common, as a result of their similarity in the location in which they reside (not to mention that there are often other similarities among people who reside proximate to one another, such as their economic class), but are not necessarily organized to serve their common interest.

I have used "not necessarily" in the previous paragraph because there are instances in which a neighborhood organizes itself for a purpose, forming a homeowners' association. While that seems to be the trend in certain areas, it is not a necessity: people can live proximate to one another without forming an association.

An organization is gathered for a specific purpose, and is generally internally structured to suit that purpose. Participants or members of the organization have specific roles, which may be directly related to the core purpose or done in support of other members, and the affairs of the organization are conducted with some degree of formality.

Admittedly, this is a generalization: I would expect that, within any organization, there are members who do not actively support the agenda or interests of the organization, but have ulterior motives for participation. However, even in such instances, there is the expectation of the organization that its members will fulfill certain roles, and this is understood by all its members, even if they choose to act otherwise.

Choice is significant, and it occurs to me (though I am not entirely firm in this conclusion) that voluntary participation is a characteristic of an organization - an individual chooses to identify himself as part of an organization, and the other members of the organization choose to accept that individual into the organization. The individual may choose to leave the members, or other members may choose to expel him.

I'm not sure this is strictly necessary: there may be instances in which a person is not able to decide whether to join or leave an organization, or in which other members of an organization are unable to block his entry or mandate his exit. However, I have the sense that mutual acceptance of participation is a distinguishing characteristics that differentiates organizations from arbitrary groups.

What is an Organization?

The previous post discussed the ethics of organizations without considering an essential definition: what is an organization? In common parlance, there is the notion of an organization as an entity: it is often said that decisions are made an actions undertaken by an organization - but my sense is that this is an abstraction that leads to inaccuracy.

As a working definition:

An organization is a collection of people, which makes decisions and undertake actions to achieve a specific purpose.

I've decided to define an organization in terms of the people it comprises rather than any physical artifacts: objects or structures. My sense is that it is a commonly accepted notion: a "church" is not so much the building but the congregation, a "nation" is not so much the geographic area as the persons who identify themselves as a member of that nation.

It is possible for an organization to exist without physical artifacts. Taking the examples above, a "church" is organized among devotees before a building is constructed, and a "nation" is organized among citizens who remain members of that nation when they travel abroad (and immigrants are not necessarily members of the organization simply by stepping into a geographic area).

In this sense, the artifacts are incidental. They may be obtained by the organization for a given purpose, related to the purpose of the organization. The physical artifacts may even be disposed of without dissolving the organization.

However, the people are not disposable to an organization. If the people disband, or abandon the purpose of an organization, the organization itself ceases to exist. With that in mind, I do not think it is inaccurate to suggest that an organization is, by definition, a group of people.

The addition of "to achieve a specific purpose" also seems essential to the notion of organization. The difference between an "organization" and a random group of people is that there is a commonality of purpose among the individuals who compose the organization. This bears further consideration.

Rational Basis of Ethics

An underlying premise to this study is that ethics is based on reason, and that any action that is not the result of a reasoned decision is not subject to ethical evaluation.

That said, I think it's acceptable to hold as unethical the failure to apply reason: if a person who is a capable of rational though undertakes an action without considering the consequences, this is a dereliction of ethics. While they have not chosen to act in an ethical manner, their choice to act without due consideration is, in itself, considered to be a failure of their ethics.

Said another way, if an actor is capable of rational though, we expect them to apply reason to determine the ethics of their decisions and the precipitating actions. The converse of this statement is that if an actor is not capable of rational thought, we cannot expect them to apply reason, nor can we assess the consequences of their actions as ethical.

This would seem to be a reasonable premise: we do not hold animals accountable for the ethics of their actions. We may assess them to be dangerous, but this is in much the same way as we assess an inanimate object to be dangerous: a wild animal that attacks a person is no more "evil" than a sharp stone that cuts the foot of a person who treads upon it.

The matter becomes less clear when we are considering a person who is incapable of reason: a person who is mentally retarded, a child who is too young to exercise logic, a person whose mind is disabled by age or psychological disorder, or a person who is overcome by emotion. We cannot consider the action of such individuals to be influenced by ethics, or subject to ethical evaluation.

This is not to say that we cannot choose to react to their actions, or act in advance to prevent them from harming others, if we consider them to be dangerous - but whether or not we are required or entitled to prevent dangerous individuals from doing harm a separate ethical decision, pertaining to the actions taken by others, not to the actions of such individuals.

The assessment of whether a given individual is capable of exercising logic is a matter of psychology rather than philosophy, and a clear distinction should be made between the two fields of study. We must take care to refrain from classifying a person as "incapable of rational thought" simply because we disagree with their reasoning. As to what other criteria might be implied to correctly determine a person's capacity for logic, I leave that to psychology.

Other than the lack of capacity for logic, there may be instances in which a person who is capable of reason chooses not to apply it. In certain circumstances, the necessity for action is such that it is not possible or practical to undergo the mental effort of applying reason - action must be taken quickly. My sense is that it would be difficult to make a general assessment of situations where one can reasonably state that there is "no time to think," and that the determination of whether this is true must be considered in the context of a specific situation.

Complexity of Action

In considering action and consequence, I have taken too narrow a consideration of actions - as if any single action is entirely an isolated phenomenon.

In some instances, I expect that there are unitary actions that can be considered in isolation, but in others, I expect that one action necessitates other actions. And just as ethics should consider all consequences of a given action, it should also include every action in a chain of events, or what may be considered to be a course of interconnected actions.

Most obviously, undertaking a given action may require other actions to be taken in advance of the action in question. The example of building a fire involves not only the act of igniting the fire, but also of gathering the material that is to be burned. IF these actions are not performed in advance, the action itself cannot be performed. And because they are performed for the sake of doing something else, the entire "bundle" of actions must be considered.

It also seems that there is a connection between an action and certain actions that follow it - but there is no strict causal connection. Given the same example (building a fire), it can be reasonably said that the actions of extinguishing the flame and disposing of the remains are actions that are related to the primary action, but there is no causal relationship between them (I cannot build a fire without gathering fuel, but I can certainly build a fire and not bother to dispose of the ashes afterward).

The sense that the following actions are necessary is a matter of ethics: that a person who starts a fire is to be held responsible for these other actions - specifically, that it is "right" of them to do so, and wrong of them to fail to do so. However, this is subject to argument: it is a matter of "should" rather than "must"

There may be instances in which a following action is strictly required, not merely a matter of expectation, though I cannot immediately think of an example that does not seem entirely ludicrous, and not entirely accurate (they are most often consequences than separate actions).

The concept of causation between an action and the action that follows it is quite often erroneous in this regard. It is (mis)used to justify undertaking an action because another action was taken. For example, the justification for retaliatory action (because they attacked us, we were compelled to attack them) suggests that the second party's attack on the first was inevitable, when in reality, it was a separate and independent decision (the retaliatory attack did not "have to" be made - the retaliator decided to undertake the return attach, and that decision is not bundled with the first, but merits a separate ethical deliberation).

And so, when considering an action, we must consider all other actions that are must be undertaken to perform that action as part of that action. Any action that should be undertaken, but is not strictly necessary, involves a separate decision, hence a separate evaluation, though it may have an impact on the evaluation of a primary action (if building a fire is deemed unethical because of the likelihood it will burn out of control, then accepting the separate action of tending the fire decreases this likelihood and diminishes the "wrongness" of the initial action).

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.