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.
No comments:
Post a Comment