Morality, Ethics, and Strategy

I've written a number of posts lately that touch upon the concepts of ethics – so while this post may be a bit philosophical, I feel it’s important to touch briefly on the fundamentals of ethics.  The basic concept of ethics is vaguely defined, often undermined by those who wish redefine morality to justify behavior that does not fit the existing definition.   So a brief meditation on fundamentals seems necessary.

In many instances, my position and complaint is that Very Bad Things are done by those who are myopic, considering the exigencies of the moment while ignoring the broader and more long-term good.  And this is similar to the definition of ethics.   Ethics describes the behavior that is necessary to achieve a desired moral outcome, while being attentive to whether those behaviors cause greater harm than good on a larger scale.

Morals are often relative.  Whatever is “good for me” is considered to be good – or if not “good for me” than “good for my friends.”   In that sense, even regimes as reprehensible as Nazi Germany can be said to have moral principles – they sought to render a benefit to one specific group of people (Aryans) with callus indifference to the detriment in did to any others, and often were willing to do grievous harm to others to provide positive outcomes for their preferred beneficiaries. 

“The ends justify the means” was a fundamental principle of Nazi morality, and a similar attitude is taken by groups that many find to be morally questionable in the present day.   In commercial organizations, it is distressingly common for the investors to be served with indifference to the welfare of employees, customers, and society at large. And often, with an eye to granting investors a short-term benefit in ways that are harmful to their long-term interests.

And so, morality remains highly subjective: they differ among cultures.  Very often what is good for some is bad for others, so what is moral depends on which groups in society a person believes to be entitled to benefits and which groups can be used without regard for their welfare.

Ethics tends to be clearer, but only by accepting morality as a given. If one accepts without question that a given outcome is good, ethics is purely technical: it describes the way in which that outcome can best be achieved.

Morality and ethics are often derided or ignored for the sake of practicality.   The practical man does whatever is needed to achieve an outcome, without considering whether the outcome or the actions taken to achieve it are proper.   He will burn down his home to kill a cockroach, because it is practical: if the fire does not kill the bug, then at least he will have no home to be infested.   Problem solved.  Bigger problem created.

Doing the right thing often means accepting constraints: to achieve a specific goal while keeping the bigger picture in mind means setting aside the most practical course of action and seeking ways to accomplish the goal that are not harmful to broader and more long-term interests.  

Ethics is about conscious self-restraint to achieve a good without doing greater harm, and an ethical person pauses to consider the big picture before taking action to achieve a specific goal – which often means taking a less convenient or expedient course of action to achieve that goal. 

This is why whose who consider themselves “practical men” have little use for ethics, and it is likewise the reason that practical men do considerable damage to the broader and more long-term interests of themselves and those around them.

It is also the reason that those who think strategically cannot shirk ethics and morality.   One must consider the bigger picture to derive a plan that will do more good than harm.   Those who ignore ethics are simply not fit for strategic thinking.