Ethics and Enterprise
Sweet17 
GB2.pdf
Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are
not conclusions of our reason. —David Hume
Too often we teach ethics to business students, law students, accoun- tants, and other professionals as if it were a rational thought process. We give them a set of rules and then teach them how to apply those
rules to different scenarios they are likely to encounter in their professional lives. It is my purpose here to highlight two critical shortcomings in this as- pect of ethics education. Both require attention to extra-rational mental pro- cesses now largely ignored.
In business ethics education we are beginning to move beyond the rulebook approach. Instead, we are teaching students how to understand, critique, and even create ethical rules and standards of conduct through an independent, rational thought process. This is a step forward, because it equips tomorrow’s professionals to create standards of conduct where none exist, or where the ex- isting rules are inadequate, and teaches them to question the rules others make when such rules are unethical. It encourages them to set personal standards of conduct higher than the minimum required by laws or rules. Most importantly, it embraces the duty of independent judgment, which is the cornerstone of professionalism. Unfortunately, the world these students will enter does not always encourage independent responsibility for ethical conduct, and few will fi nd the emotional resources required to persist in their independent ethical de- velopment and resolve. This is the fi rst shortcoming with the current approach to teaching ethical conduct.
Second, it is diffi cult for professionals to act on rules, regardless of who makes them. When professionals try to practice ethical conduct, their failure
The Psychology of Ethics Education
by Sam Cassidy
GB-Chapter-03.indd 29GB-Chapter-03.indd 29 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS30
rate is high. For example, businesspeople know it is wrong to trade on insider information, yet they may do it anyway. They also know it is wrong not to report it when their colleagues are acting dishonestly, yet they let it go.
In short, the rational mind knows what to do, but knowing and doing are two different things. The transition from knowing the ethical course of ac- tion to acting on that knowledge is not simply a rational process. It is also an emotional one, with subconscious roots that ethics teachers have yet to master and integrate into our discipline.
I will use the ancient debate (Heraclitus 540-480 BC) between the Positive Law and the Natural Law schools to illustrate how ethical decision-making is composed of a peculiar mixture of rational and emotional elements. The de- bate is essential to independent moral agency―a cornerstone of ethical train- ing in which people are responsible for making their own moral judgments and acting in a moral manner. The issue is not limited to law, and applies just as well to business people, accountants, and other professionals exercising authority. This age-old confl ict is rich with emotional content that is usually discussed in rational language, that is, as if emotion played no role.
Examples of Decision-Making Below are three examples that illustrate the confl ict between Positive Law and Natural Law. They are also examples of ethical dilemmas―that is, problems con- taining a confl ict between two or more positive values, and successfully resolving such confl icts is the essence of both professionalism and making ethical decisions.
Example One: In 1879, the Connecticut legislature passed a law prohibit- ing the possession, distribution, or use of “any drug, medicinal article or in- strument for the purpose of preventing conception.”1 The law was still on the books in the early 1960s when Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxtom of Yale Medical School opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. They were arrested, tried, and convicted of violating the statute. Their con- viction was sustained on appeal, both in the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court. They were clearly guilty of violat- ing the law, but were their convictions “just” in terms of Natural Law? To answer this we must fi rst decide whether a legislative body, elected by a major- ity, can act as the fi nal arbitrator on moral conduct―for example, in this case, without accounting for the independent judgment of a married woman, her husband, and their physician concerning whether or not they want to conceive a child. The Positive Law, represented by the Connecticut statute, is clear. But is there more to consider?
Example Two: Consider an employer who adopts a wage policy that dis- criminates against older workers. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as created by Congress and interpreted by the courts, says the employer is perfectly within its rights to do that.2 The employer’s action follows all the rules―it is in accordance with Positive Law. But, is it just?
GB-Chapter-03.indd 30GB-Chapter-03.indd 30 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
31THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
Example Three: Consider a chemical company that relocates its plant to a country with no emission standards. That is, there is no Positive Law re- stricting the company’s discharge of poisonous emissions. The local residents are poor, have a short life expectancy, and the plant’s emissions are a serious health hazard. Thus, without local regulation, the only factor restricting the company’s conduct is its own sense of fairness.3 Without a high sensitivity to Natural Law, or justice, the company will likely discharge waste directly into the community. Here, two values confl ict: the company’s duty to stockholders to maximize profi t, and its duty to not harm neighbors.
These examples are all manifestations of the confl ict between justice and order―or, what philosophers and jurists have debated for thousands of years, Natural Law vs. Positive Law. In practice, lawyers and jurists are profession- ally trained to focus on Positive Law.4 MBA programs teach future business leaders that compliance with such law is essential. Beyond complying with the law, the core value which typically controls business decision-making when values confl ict is maximizing stockholder profi t, not justice. We train profes- sionals to look to rules created not by themselves but by Congress, the boss, the necessities of a competitive marketplace, or some other authority, and to apply those rules to their professional practice for ethical guidance when they must decide right from wrong action.5 Occasionally, we teach students how to abstract new rules of conduct or to question existing rules. However, we teach this only as a rational exercise.
But what if, unknown to our conscious mind, we actually make these de- cisions based on emotional instinct and then develop a rational argument to support that decision? Indeed, because people, in fact, make decisions before the rational process of justifi cation, there is need for ethics education to search beyond the rational mind and to focus on the roles emotion and instinct play.
What Is Positive Law? Positive Law offers an easy way to solve our dilemmas about ethical conduct. It contends that designated authorities should make all the rules so we don’t need to exercise our own judgment: We can just follow theirs. Within a politi- cal community, elected representatives create the codes, statutes and regula- tions that make up Positive Law. In the United States, we give governmental entities such as Congress and state legislatures the sole authority to make such rules. Everyone in society, other than empowered governmental offi cials, must then obey. Thus, citizens give up their right to independently judge the ethical rules authorities create. The two advantages of having a few authority fi gures make the rules are order and effi ciency: we know clearly what the law is at all times, regulate our conduct accordingly, and predict how others will act.
Similarly, the authority to develop rules is institutionalized in a business. A small business owner, or leader of a large corporation, has the power to make
GB-Chapter-03.indd 31GB-Chapter-03.indd 31 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS32
rules governing its employees, the quality and price of its products and, to a large extent, how the company interacts with the surrounding community. While government retains some authority in this area, business leaders have a great deal of discretion to make rules of conduct within their organizations. In large corporations, the authority to make rules is distributed among stock- holders, boards of directors, offi cers, managers, and other designated employ- ees. Power hierarchies defi ne the rule-making function of each member of the organization, and while most business cultures encourage employees to use their own judgment rather than follow a detailed list of policies, ultimately, the power to make rules is reserved for those at the top. This is how companies address the tension between Positive Law and their employees’ independent judgment when they attempt to make an ethical decision.
Advocates of Positive Law contend that order and predictability are the most important values in all situations; order requires a set of rules everyone must follow. Rules create predictability in human behavior, which is more important than justice. Advocates of Positive Law fear there would be no common standard of conduct if every individual were responsible for judging which rules are fair and which are not. Humans would do whatever they felt they could justify using their own subjective standards of conduct. Positive Law advocates do not trust people’s personal sense of justice, because they generally view humans as competitive and self-interested by nature. Some exalt those instincts, reasoning that self-interest colors the average person’s sense of fairness in any situation. Without rules, positive law advocates see only chaos―with human behavior rising barely above that of wild animals. For them, strict adherence to authority, without questioning the rules, creates the fabric of civilization and controls the beast within.
Seventeenth century English social philosopher Thomas Hobbes’ The Levia- than portrays life as a nightmare in the absence of a central authority. He viewed human nature as self-serving: Without rules, individuals are the sole judge of their own standards of conduct, unconcerned about the good of society or others. In such a world, neither one’s property nor one’s life is safe. There are no restraints to stop one from acting on innate tendencies to rob and murder out of self-interest. Life under such circumstances is, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”6
Like Hobbes, advocates of Positive Law contend that laws―and an all- powerful enforcer of those laws―are necessary to control people, given their self-serving, egocentric nature. Advocates of Positive Law also argue any authority, just or unjust, is better than leaving people free to follow their con- science. Since individuals are incapable of controlling themselves, strict rules of conduct must come from an outside authority, such as a government, that enforces those rules. Adam Smith’s theory of economics is built, in part, on this view of human nature:
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
GB-Chapter-03.indd 32GB-Chapter-03.indd 32 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
33THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.7
Much of the debate over economic policy in this country today can be viewed as a debate over whether business leaders can regulate themselves―or wheth- er a government, or “Leviathan,” is needed to stop them from violating rules of conduct intended to benefi t everybody in the marketplace. Many experts con- tend the Great Depression, and America’s current economic meltdown, were the result of unregulated self-interest at work in the marketplace. This view is the cornerstone of the perceived need for some authority to develop and enforce rules literally and uniformly to avoid chaos and ensure that groups act effi ciently. Such a view of human nature has a large psychological component. Self-interest, I will argue, is more emotional than rational.
The rigid lines of authority once found in the European feudal system is an extreme example of a Positive Law system. Three percent of the population― the monarch, aristocracy, and church offi cials―wielded all decision-making authority. The rules created by those in power were not to be questioned by the people. Enforcement was brutal, and a person’s conscience was useless and subject to the atrophy of non-use. Today, political authority, specifi cally the power to make rules within a business, is more widely dispersed than in feudal times. Those in a position of authority use the underlying core value of order to justify the uniform enforcement of their rules. Philosopher John Locke’s “majority rule” has replaced divine authority of the nobility and clergy, but the authority of Positive Law is still sacred in some circles. Good and bad laws alike must be enforced. If a law is bad, or unjust, it must still be enforced until it is changed. If Congress enacts an unjust law, the courts must strictly enforce it. A judge thus must leave personal conscience at home and do injustice until Congress sees fi t to change the law. If a judge wants to produce justice in a particular case, and follows personal conscience by inter- preting a statute narrowly or the Constitution differently, that judge will likely be accused of “legislating from the bench,” implying the judge is wielding inappropriate power.
In some businesses, if the CEO creates a policy that harms customers, em- ployees will follow it. Employees are not free to interject their own conscience or judgment, regardless of the damage their obedience causes. As customers, we experience this when an employee tells us, “I’m sorry. That’s our policy and I don’t make the rules.” Among managers, responsibility for a bad policy is often passed up the corporate ladder to the CEO or board of directors. That way, managers can wash their hands of any responsibility for the unfair, or un- foreseen, results that a bad policy or rule produce. Nonetheless, there is order, predictability, and submission to authority; for many, a little injustice here or there is a small price to pay for such effi ciency.
In sum, Positive Law―be it laws enacted by a government, rules created within a corporation, or codes of professional conduct―promises order and
GB-Chapter-03.indd 33GB-Chapter-03.indd 33 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS34
effi ciency by withdrawing decision making discretion from lower levels. But is a society’s preference for order, or a corporation’s adherence to effi ciency, a rationally based preference, or does it have an emotional component?
What Is Natural Law? Natural Law advocates are willing to question authority and rules. They be- lieve all individuals are capable of, responsible for, and required to participate in, the making of important decisions about their own actions. In other words, people are able to decide right from wrong. Enlightenment thinkers believed the right to make law fl ows from the people, or the governed, not the gover- nors. They believed all individuals have an equal capacity to know justice. The American Declaration of Independence and French Declaration of the Rights of Man are predicated on a view of human nature that is incompatible with blind allegiance to authority. This view of humans as independent moral agents requires individuals to use their own judgment―even after elected au- thorities make the rules―because majorities can be guilty of tyranny.
Historian Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revo- lution says of the central philosophy of the American Revolution: “faith ran high that a better world than any that had ever been known could be built where authority was distrusted and held in constant scrutiny.” Thus, our democracy was conceived on the belief that individuals could rise above self-interest to act justly with the welfare of society as their guiding principle.
Natural Law advocates generally are more optimistic about human po- tential than Positive Law thinkers, believing human nature can be developed to overcome self-interest, and people can act in the interest of the collective good. Each of us can recognize justice in a particular situation, and can act on it in ways that are much more likely to produce just outcomes, as opposed to when we obey stagnant, infl exible laws or rules created by a remote authority.
It is important to note this human ability is a potential, not a reality. Natural Law advocates recognize self-interested passions may control how humans make decisions. They also recognize this untrained, misdirected instinct can be changed through contemplation, education, and a culture of individual re- sponsibility―to the point when it becomes a habit on which society can rely. Natural Law dictates humans are independent moral agents given the right and the responsibility to question authority when necessary to assure that injustice is not perpetrated against others. Such individuals are capable of controlling themselves and making ethical judgments without constant micromanagement from an outside authority.
All this suggests six basic principles of Natural Law:
1. A higher law exists above man-made law. Kings, legislators, and bosses often make unjust laws that do not take into ac- count all the potential circumstances in which the rules will
GB-Chapter-03.indd 34GB-Chapter-03.indd 34 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
35THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
be enforced. We must acknowledge there is a higher law more deeply rooted in the human psyche, more farsighted than man-made law, universally recognized as proven and unchangeable.8
2. People can discover such a higher law. Each one of us can discover this law inside ourselves through effort, study, and thought. It is in all people as a self-evident truth of the hu- man condition. The moral precept requiring all to do unto others as we would have them do unto us is an example of such a basic human truth.
3. This higher law is universal and reversible. Natural prin- ciples of justice and standards of conduct are universally rec- ognized and applied. They provide a consistent guide for our actions no matter the situation, the geography, or the culture. These principles are reversible. If we change places with another person we fi nd the same principle applies equally― regardless of our standing.
4. Humans can be relied upon to act on principles of Natural Law, without being forced. People learn what justice is, re- gardless of whether it is innate or learned through education. These principles become habitual through practice.
5. All people must act in accordance with Natural Law. It is not enough to know what justice is, individuals are bound to act in accordance with those higher principles. Each of us is held personally accountable for our own violations of Natural Law when we act, or do not act, in a particular situation.
6. Humans are emotionally compelled to act on their own in- stincts about Natural Law. This principle is discussed below.
The Emotional Aspects of Human Decision-Making When teaching ethics, we often try to apply logic when looking at the way peo- ple make decisions. In doing so, we miss something because human thought is not always entirely rational. People are also emotional decision makers, as Daniel Goleman observes:
A view of human nature that ignores the power of emotions is sadly shortsighted. The very name Homo sapiens, the thinking species, is
GB-Chapter-03.indd 35GB-Chapter-03.indd 35 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS36
misleading in light of the new appreciation and vision of the place of emotions in our lives that science now offers. As we all know from experience, when it comes to shaping our decisions and our actions, feeling counts every bit as much, and often more, than thought.9
Proponents of both Positive and Natural Law point to powerful emotional fac- tors that drive how people make decisions. For Positive Law advocates, self- interest is the emotional driver (it is in one’s self-interest to obey the law rather than suffer the consequences). For Natural Law proponents, the emotional driv- er is empathy (an injustice infl icted on a fellow citizen is intolerable because we can identify with that citizen). Aristotle recognized the ongoing struggle between emotion and reason in all of us, arguing that we thus need to develop moral character so we can control and direct our most powerful emotions. Ad- vocates of Positive Law view self-interest as central to human nature; advocates of Natural Law view people as interested in the welfare of all members of their community and able to control egotistical tendencies. Human nature is central to the disagreement between the Positive Law and Natural Law factions. Is self- interest logical, or is it emotional? Once we accept a theory as fact (self-interest generally is accepted as a fact of life), we tend to assume its rationality. But just how rational is self-interest? I posit that the idea that my own self-interest is more important than the self-interest of anyone else is illogical. I am just one person out of more than 6.5 billion others on the planet. My very survival depends on the health and well being of countless others. Hence, there is little logic or rational basis for my self-interest. Still, I am very likely to choose self- interest over community benefi t when deciding between the two despite the fact tragedy often results for the community as a whole when everyone chooses self- interest. Ironically, communal tragedy goes against my own self-interest in the long run. In sum, choosing to act self-interestedly often is not a product of the rational mind, but likely emotional and rooted in the subconscious.
Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid describes this strong emotional instinct as, “a natural impulse to certain actions, without deliberation and without any conception of what we do.”10 Carl Jung added to this characterization by noting:
Instinctive action is characterized by an unconsciousness of the psycho- logical motive behind it; in contrast to the strictly conscious processes… instinctive action appears to be a more or less abrupt psychic occurrence, a sort of interruption of the continuity of consciousness. On this account, it is felt as an inner necessity…11
The power and force of this urge sets us apart from other animals. As Charles Darwin noted:
Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, the moral sense or conscience is by far the most important […] It is summed up in
GB-Chapter-03.indd 36GB-Chapter-03.indd 36 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
37THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
that short but imperious word ought, so full of high signifi cance. It is the most noble of all the attributes of man, leading him without a moment’s hesitation to risk his life for that of a fellow-creature; or after due delibera- tion, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifi ce it in some great cause.12
Much as self-interest emerges from the subconscious as a powerful instinct which can overwhelm logical thought processes, Natural Law advocates point to such equally powerful instincts as justice, equality, and liberty which have sustained revolutionary fervor, overthrown monarchs and dictators, and motivated humans to make great personal, sometimes irrational, sacrifi ce. His- tory is full of examples of individual sacrifi ce for Natural Law ideals. In the ultimate act of sacrifi cing one’s life itself, such as in times of war, instinctive group values have the power to overwhelm even the instinct of self-interest. Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, said of man and human nature:
There are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortunes of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. … Nature, which formed men for that mutual kindness so necessary for their happiness, renders every man the peculiar object of kindness.13
That is a far cry from homo economicus, the self-serving human being de- scribed in Smith’s Wealth of Nations.
If self-interest, justice, trust, and liberty all carry a powerful emotional component, any discipline that aims to infl uence human nature or decision- making―in politics, law, business management, leadership, and especially ethics―must start with a thorough understanding of the logical and emotional sides of human behavior. The central question becomes: How do emotional impulses and logical thought processes infl uence how people make decisions? There would be little need for an external rule-maker, or enforcer, if humans were logical in all of their actions and decisions. We all would logically come to the same conclusions and act alike. But passions also drive people. These passions fuel creativity and provide energy, ambition, and the focus neces- sary to self-improvement. Marc Hauser, a Harvard professor of psychology, noted:
We should be looking at our moral psychology as an instinct […] that un- consciously […] generates judgments of right and wrong, and […] why some situations tempt us to sin in the face of sensibility handed down from law, religion, and education […] and leave us dumbfounded be- cause the guiding principles are inaccessible, tucked away in the mind’s library of unconscious knowledge.14
GB-Chapter-03.indd 37GB-Chapter-03.indd 37 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS38
The emotional component cannot be ignored because it connects recognition to action. In all regulation of human behavior, whether on an individual or group level, there are core values or subconscious patterns that must be un- derstood and factored into any attempt to infl uence behavior. Among these emotional values are: justice, liberty and the deep need to belong.
Justice as a Compelling Emotional Need When I refer to justice, I mean the way both benefi ts and burdens are distrib- uted among a group of people. The group may be a nation, or a business. Ben- efi ts might include wealth, power, opportunity, rewards, and fame. Burdens might include taxes and work. Does everyone get what they deserve when both the benefi ts and burdens are handed out? If so, this is a state of justice. One method of distribution is competition: let the strongest get all they can get. By contrast, cooperation requires putting the welfare of the group above that of any individual. It requires a social contract in which everyone agrees that the distribution of benefi ts and burdens is fair.
Competition and cooperation―self-interest and community interest―are two of the most powerful motivators in the business world. If Positive Law theorists are correct about human nature, when we study people experimen- tally, we should fi nd that the vast majority of them are self-interested. If Natu- ral Law proponents are correct, we should fi nd that the interests of the group are predominant. In fact, recent research by Gintis, Bowles, Boyd and Fehr fi nds that human nature is a mix of four distinct character types.15 The fi rst is driven to compete with one another for material advantage. Their dominant motivation is self-interest. It is important to point out this is not the larg- est group, and certainly does not represent the majority. The second group is driven by the instinct to cooperate. People predisposed to cooperate are more concerned about the benefi t of the whole than personal gain when they make decisions. This is a controlling instinct for a signifi cant number of hu- mans, but again, it is not the dominant instinct. The third, and smallest, group showed a predisposition to spite and envy. Finally, the largest group is what the authors called “reciprocators for whom justice seems to be the driving concern at fi rst glance.” This group begins by acting in the interests of the group, which looks like cooperation, but these reciprocators quickly adapt to (reciprocate) the sentiments of other players, responding in the same way they are treated. If they confront others making decisions out of self-interest, re- ciprocators respond the same way; if others cooperate, reciprocators respond with cooperation.
In one of hundreds of experiments corroborating these conclusions, sub- jects were divided into three groups for an experimental game. Each group was given $20 and asked to decide in each round of the game to contrib- ute some portion of their money to a common account, keeping the rest for
GB-Chapter-03.indd 38GB-Chapter-03.indd 38 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
39THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
themselves. At the end of each round, the experimenter would announce how much was contributed to the common account, and what portion would be equally distributed to each group. At the end of ten rounds, the common account was again divided equally between the teams and the money was theirs to keep. If self-interest were the driving force, every team would have contributed nothing to the common account, preserving their own money while still sharing in the distributive benefi ts of other contributions. The results from numerous studies found that, in the early rounds, 40 to 60 per- cent of the private accounts were contributed to the common account, which represented a stunning act of cooperation. In later rounds, 73 percent contrib- uted nothing. When asked about the drop in cooperation, subjects reported they would cooperate as long as the other players did so. If others acted out of self-interest, they would punish the behavior by acting selfi shly in return. What they wanted was justice.
In one variation of the experiment, players were given the chance to punish others by imposing a fi ne on those who did not cooperate. There was a catch: players had to pay from their own account to impose the fi ne, which some did. Since no self-serving participant would pay to punish another selfi sh player (because they would lose money), the results demonstrated players were en- gaged in a form of justice based on retribution.
Even in experiments tied to wages and motivation, incentives are found to be less important than a sense of fairness, or justice, among workers. In games in which participants role-played employers and employees, the relationship between productivity and pay revealed that a raise in pay did not produce higher productivity. Instead, employee productivity was tied more directly to the desire for fair treatment. When employees felt their wages were set unjustly there were drops in productivity. As Nowak and Sigmund note, “The fi ction of a rational homo economicus relentlessly optimizing material utility is giving way to bounded rational decision-makers governed by instincts and emotions […] homo reciprocans.”16
These are not just theories. Business Professor Edward Lawler cites empir- ical evidence that perception of fairness in setting pay in companies is critical to gaining high performance from employees. On the fl ip side, Lawler notes when CEO pay soars out of proportion to their job performance they, “in es- sence, are put in the position of appearing to be self-serving individuals who are simply getting what they can from the organization. This undermines their moral authority to lead and very much limits their ability to talk about com- mon vision and direction for the organization.”17
Some people behave selfi shly, and some altruistically, but the largest num- ber is concerned with justice, or equity, in their interactions with others. Im- portantly, the instinct for self-interest is not controlled by a rational thought process that looks far ahead to see a selfi sh payback, but rather by a deeply rooted passion: justice.
GB-Chapter-03.indd 39GB-Chapter-03.indd 39 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS40
Brain imaging has been used to track the areas of the brain activated by different thought processes, allowing researchers to see whether a particular brain activity is rational or emotional. Using these techniques, subjects were observed playing the games described above, and researchers discovered, through CT scans of the brain, signifi cant activation of the anterior insula, a part of the brain known to play a role in negative emotions. This indicates that sensitivity to injustice is more emotional than rational.
Liberty as a Compelling Emotional Need Individuals often are caught between the dictates of authority and their own passion for justice. Suppose we lived in Atlanta in 1859 when it was illegal to help slaves escape captivity; suppose further we felt this is an unjust law. In that situation, we must decide whether to obey authority (Positive Law) or our instinct for justice (Natural Law). In other words: should one act according to conscience, or defer to the legislative body that created the law?
Our answer will depend on the level of our moral development. The highly regarded theories of American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg place a per- son’s ability to determine ethical duties, or Natural Law, at the top of the devel- opmental ladder. Kohlberg places adherence to Positive Law in the middle. He begins by dividing moral development into three broad categories. The lowest level of ethical development is labeled pre-conventional. Here, all choices are made on the basis of selfi sh interest. The pre-conventional thinker asks: “Will this action benefi t me, or is it necessary to avoid punishment?” The interests of others are irrelevant. The core value, which trumps everything and guides all decisions, is self-interest (examples include a 3-year-old child whose decisions are calculated to maximize pleasure and avoid pain, and a CEO infl ating the value of company stock with bad fi nancial information while selling his or her own shares at a profi t).
Moving up the ladder of moral development, Kohlberg identifi es a middle category he calls conventional. Kohlberg believes such decisions are based on the basis of the law and peer group pressure. The core value here is order. Conventional people believe order derives from obeying rules set by authori- ties. Unquestioning obedience to law and corporate policy is the standard for such behavior. It is the lawmakers who defi ne morality. Such conventional thinkers are often viewed as “good team players,” because the opinion of their peers is of paramount importance. Kohlberg says the vast majority of us stop our upward progress at this stage.
Kohlberg calls the highest stage of development post-conventional. Here, people exercise their own judgment about morality. They might ask whether a law was adopted through a fair process before deciding whether to obey it or, even higher on Kohlberg’s scale, they may ask whether the law is in harmony with Natural Law. If not, these people will choose to disobey the law. The post-con- ventional thinker might be willing to quit a job rather than obey an unethical order.
GB-Chapter-03.indd 40GB-Chapter-03.indd 40 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
41THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
Liberty, the freedom of individuals to act on their own judgment about ethical matters, lies at the root of the ethical tradition. Aristotle taught that to know virtue is not nearly as diffi cult as acting virtuously, and the only way to act virtuously is through practice. Aristotle believed that to convert theory into action required repetition: a person must think and act ethically until it becomes instinctive. Thus, a person gains no practice thinking about ethical issues if he or she always looks to some other authority for answers. Follow- ing Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas concluded that no decision is an ethical one unless it is the result of free will. Good character is based on regular choices tied to appropriate principles, and a wise person will fi nd such principles obvi- ous after sifting through and analyzing all relevant data.
Many philosophers have vigorously encouraged professionals to make in- dependent judgments and to exercise their liberty (and responsibility) as inde- pendent moral agents. Justice Benjamin Cardozo said:
As lawyers and legal scholars we can become very absorbed in the me- chanics of legal reasoning, rationally connecting statutes and cases to determine the outcome of each individual case. Over time, we come to think so highly of the rational legal process that we come to believe it for its own sake, the sanctity of the law on which our orderly society depends. Judges march at times to pitiless conclusions under the prod of a remorseless logic which is supposed to leave them no alternative. They deplore the sacrifi cial rite. They perform it, nonetheless, with averted gaze, convinced as they plunge the knife that they obey the bidding of their offi ce. The victim is offered up to the gods of juris- prudence on the altar of regularity.18
But those who watch the knife plunge are deeply offended, and they lose re- spect for the judge and the institution that would deprive them of the liberty of making their own moral judgments and of acting morally.
The Emotional Need To Belong The need to belong is among the most powerful emotional needs. Kohlberg alludes to this in his descriptions of conventional development, where peer opinion and fi tting-in with society’s rules and conventions are a top prior- ity. He fi nds this level of human development to be the most prevalent in our culture. However, the deep desire to have a seat at the table and be respected among peers is a two-edged sword: it encourages cooperation, team building, and order, but it can unleash dangerous “group think.” In the words of novelist and lay theologian C.S. Lewis:
I believe that in all men’s lives at certain periods and in many men’s lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the
GB-Chapter-03.indd 41GB-Chapter-03.indd 41 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
GOOD BUSINESS42
most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local ring and the terror of being left outside. …Of all the passions the passion for the Inner Ring is most skilful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.19
At Nuremberg following World War II, the Allies brought Nazi war criminals to trial arguing that individuals cannot hide behind Positive Law to escape punishment for violating Natural Law. War criminals included Nazi judges who followed German laws when making judgments from the bench. Per- tinently, Nazi war criminals were not guilty of violating German law when they persecuted and exterminated Jews. Instead, American judges sat in judg- ment over Germans accused of enforcing unjust, but legally made, German laws. That is, Nazi citizens were prosecuted for horrible acts they committed while carrying out the mandates of laws enacted through a legal process in a sovereign country. The German people’s conformity to offi cial policy has been attributed to this powerful emotion: the need to belong. In his book, The Lucifer Effect, psychologist Philip Zimbardo reviews countless psychological experiments and fi eld data, including Nazi-era cruelty, the Mei Li Massacre in Vietnam, and Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. Zimbardo traces the cause to the need to belong: “other people are more likely to accept us when we agree with them than when we disagree, so we yield to their view of the world, driven by a powerful need to belong.”20
Conclusion As Harvard’s Marc Hauser writes, “Bottom Line: Reasoning and emotion both play a role in our moral behavior, but neither [logic nor emotion alone] can do complete justice to the process leading up to moral judgment.”21 Hence, I conclude that when we ignore peoples’ core ethical values we agi- tate an emotional bomb. When we violate those core values that bomb may explode.
In this paper I have discussed four such core values which seem to have subconscious roots and produce powerful emotional instincts: self-interest, justice and reciprocity, liberty, and the need to belong. Leaders of legal and business institutions who challenge such deeply held values can damage not only themselves but also the institutions they represent. Leaders thus must understand human motivations on both ethical and emotional levels if they expect to attract and maintain followers. The rational mind can recognize deeply seated emotional instincts, and can distinguish instincts that are use- ful versus those that can be destructive. The rational mind also can reinforce these useful instincts and try to rein in destructive ones. But the rational mind is overmatched. If we are to have any success in ethics training, we must un- derstand and respect the infl uence of subconscious emotion and the interaction between the rational and the emotional. It is one thing for students to be able
GB-Chapter-03.indd 42GB-Chapter-03.indd 42 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
43THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ETHICS EDUCATION
to explain how Kant would resolve a particular ethical dilemma―because stu- dents are able to do this exercise without dealing with emotion―but it is when the students try to act on Kant’s advice that the confl ict between the rational and the emotional comes to life.
1 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). 2 Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228 (2005). 3 Lawrence Summers, “Let Them Eat Pollution,” The Economist, Feb. 8, 1992, p. 66. 4 Robert Grandfi eld, “Do Law Students Abandon Their Ideals? The Crisis in the Age of Affl uence,” Legal Studies Forum, Vol. XVIII (1994), p. 53. 5 Marc D. Hauser, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), p. 2. 6 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, as reprinted in The English Philosophers From Bacon to Mill, Edwin A. Burtt, ed. (New York: Random House, 1939), p. 161. 7 Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991), p. 20. 8 Ethel M. Albert, Theodore C. Denise, and Sheldon P. Peterfreund, Great Traditions in Ethics 6th Ed. (Wadsworth Publishing), p. 110. 9 Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence: Why it can Matter More than IQ (New York: Bantam Books, 1995), p. 4. 10 Thomas Reid, Essays on the Active Powers of Man (Edinburgh: John Bell, 1788), p. 103. 11 Carl G. Jung, The Portable Jung, Joseph Campbell, ed. (New York: Viking Penguin, 1971), pp. 48-49. 12 Charles Darwin, Descent of Man (Sioux Falls, S.D.: NuVision Publications), p. 95. 13 Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Edinburgh, 1759), p. 1. 14 Hauser, Moral Minds, supra note 5, p. 2. 15 Herbert Gintis, Samuel Bowles, Robert Boyd and Ernst Fehr, eds., Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 151-191. 16 Martin A. Nowak and Karl Sigmund, “Enhanced: Shrewd investments,” Science, vol. 288, p. 819. 17 Edward E. Lawler, Rewarding Excellence: Pay Strategies for the New Economy (San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 2000), p. 283. 18 Benjamin Cardozo, The Growth of Law (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1924), p. 66. 19 C.S. Lewis, “The Inner Ring,” Memorial Lecture at King’s College, University of London (1944) 20 Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect (New York: Random House, 2007), p. 262. 21 Hauser, Moral Minds, supra note 5, p. 11.
GB-Chapter-03.indd 43GB-Chapter-03.indd 43 3/15/10 10:29 AM3/15/10 10:29 AMO'Toole, J., & Mayer, D. (2010). Good business : Exercising effective and ethical leadership. Taylor & Francis Group. Created from capella on 2023-10-14 00:17:19.
C op
yr ig
ht ©
2 01
0. T
ay lo
r &
F ra
nc is
G ro
up . A
ll rig
ht s
re se
rv ed
.
