Moral

https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

Values

Values are individual beliefs that motivate people to act one way or another. They serve as a guide for
human behavior.

Generally, people are predisposed to adopt the values that they are raised with. People also tend to
believe that those values are “right” because they are the values of their particular culture.

Ethical decision-making often involves weighing values against each other and choosing which values to
elevate. Conflicts can result when people have different values, leading to a clash of preferences and
priorities.

Some values have intrinsic worth, such as love, truth, and freedom. Other values, such as ambition,
responsibility, and courage, describe traits or behaviors that are instrumental as means to an end.

Still other values are considered sacred and are moral imperatives for those who believe in them. Sacred
values will seldom be compromised because they are perceived as duties rather than as factors to be
weighed in decision-making. For example, for some people, their nation’s flag may represent a sacred
value. But for others, the flag may just be a piece of cloth.

So, whether values are sacred, have intrinsic worth, or are a means to an end, values vary among
individuals and across cultures and time. However values are universally recognized as a driving force in
ethical decision-making.

Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism asserts that there are certain universal moral principles by which all peoples’ actions
may be judged. It is a form of deontology.

The challenge with moral absolutism, however, is that there will always be strong disagreements about
which moral principles are correct and which are incorrect.
For example, most people around the world probably accept the idea that we should treat others as we
wish to be treated ourselves. But beyond that, people from different countries likely hold varying views
about everything from the morality of abortion and capital punishment to nepotism and bribery.

Moral absolutism contrasts with moral relativism, which denies that there are absolute moral values. It
also differs from moral pluralism, which urges tolerance of others’ moral principles without concluding
that all views are equally valid.

So, while moral absolutism declares a universal set of moral values, in reality, moral principles vary
greatly among nations, cultures, and religions.

Moral Agent

A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for
his or her own actions. Moral agents have a moral responsibility not to cause unjustified harm.

Traditionally, moral agency is assigned only to those who can be held responsible for their actions.
Children, and adults with certain mental disabilities, may have little or no capacity to be moral agents.
Adults with full mental capacity relinquish their moral agency only in extreme situations, like being held
hostage.

By expecting people to act as moral agents, we hold people accountable for the harm they cause others.

So, do corporations have moral agency? As artificial intelligence develops, will robots have moral
agency? And what about socially intelligent non-human animals such as dolphins and elephants?

Indeed, future philosophers and legal scholars will need to consider moral agency as it applies to these
situations and others.

Moral Cognition

Moral cognition is the study of the brain’s role in moral judgment and decision-making. As a social
science, it involves understanding the rationalizations and biases that affect moral decision-making.
Moral cognition also involves the scientific study of the brain that is evolving along with technology.

Researchers who study moral cognition attempt to provide social and biological explanations for how our
brains process information and make moral or immoral choices. Some scientist examine genetic and
molecular influences, while others use neuroimaging to map the areas of the brain that direct people’s
choices.

Moral thinking appears to be a complicated process. There is no single seat of moral activity in the brain.
However, a network of various regions of the brain does consistently appear to be involved in moral
decision-making.

So, the study of moral cognition does not aim to tell people what choices they should make. Rather, it
attempts to explain how and why people make the moral choices that they do.

Moral Emotions

Emotions – that is to say feelings and intuitions – play a major role in most of the ethical decisions
people make. Most people do not realize how much their emotions direct their moral choices. But
experts think it is impossible to make any important moral judgments without emotions.

Inner-directed negative emotions like guilt, embarrassment, and shame often motivate people to act
ethically.

Outer-directed negative emotions, on the other hand, aim to discipline or punish. For example, people
often direct anger, disgust, or contempt at those who have acted unethically. This discourages others
from behaving the same way.

Positive emotions like gratitude and admiration, which people may feel when they see another acting
with compassion or kindness, can prompt people to help others.

Emotions evoked by suffering, such as sympathy and empathy, often lead people to act ethically toward
others. Indeed, empathy is the central moral emotion that most commonly motivates prosocial activity
such as altruism, cooperation, and generosity.

So, while we may believe that our moral decisions are influenced most by our philosophy or religious
values, in truth our emotions play a significant role in our ethical decision-making.

Moral Equilibrium
Moral equilibrium is the idea that most people keep a running mental scoreboard where they compare
their self-image as a good person with what they actually do.

When we do something inconsistent with our positive self-image, we naturally feel a deficit on the good
side of our scoreboard. Then, we will often actively look for an opportunity to do something good to
bring things back into equilibrium. This is called moral compensation.

Conversely, when we have done something honorable, we feel a surplus on the good side of our mental
scoreboard. Then, we may then give ourselves permission not to live up to our own ethical standards.
This is called moral licensing.

For example, Oral Suer, the hard-working CEO of the Washington D.C.-area United Way, raised more than
$1 billion for local charities. Unfortunately, Suer gave himself license to divert substantial sums intended
for the charity for his personal use to reward himself for his good deeds.

So, our tendency to maintain moral equilibrium may mean that we will act unethically. Indeed, we must
guard against our natural inclination to give ourselves permission to depart from our usual moral
standards.

Moral Imagination

Moral imagination, according to philosopher Mark Johnson, means envisioning the full range of
possibilities in a particular situation in order to solve an ethical challenge. Johnson emphasizes that
acting morally often requires more than just strength of character. For example, moral action requires
empathy and the awareness to discern what is morally relevant in a given situation.

Moral imagination, as defined by Minette Drumwright and Patrick Murphy, is the ability to be
simultaneously ethical and successful by envisioning new and creative alternatives. In other words, can
people look beyond the dollars-and-cents impact of a decision to see how it affects others?

For example, consider Nestle Foods. The company refused to target young children with advertising for
its high sugar, high fat products. Instead, to keep the company competitive in that market, it innovated
and created new, healthier products to advertise to young children.

Indeed, moral imagination, combined with creativity and moral courage, enables both individuals and
businesses to act more ethically in society.
Moral Muteness

Moral muteness occurs when people witness unethical behavior and choose not to say anything. It can
also occur when people communicate in ways that obscure their moral beliefs and commitments.

When we see others acting unethically, often the easiest thing to do is look the other way. Studies show
that less than half of those who witness organizational wrongdoing report it. To speak out risks conflict,
and we tend to avoid conflict because we pay an emotional and social cost for it.

For example, in one study, psychologist Harold Takooshian planted fur coats, cameras, and TVs inside 310
locked cars in New York City. He sent a team of volunteers to break into the cars and steal the valuables,
asking the “thieves” to act in an obviously suspicious manner. About 3,500 people witnessed the break-
ins, but only 9 people took any kind of action. Of those who spoke up, five were policemen.

Indeed, only a relatively small percentage of people who see wrongdoing speak up. But, if we wish to be
ethical people, we must strive to combat moral muteness in all areas of our lives.

Moral Myopia

Moral myopia refers to the inability to see ethical issues clearly.

The term, coined by Minette Drumwright and Patrick Murphy, describes what happens when we do not
recognize the moral implications of a problem or we have a distorted moral vision. An extreme version of
moral myopia is called moral blindness.

For example, people may become so focused on other aspects of a situation, like pleasing their professor
or boss or meeting sales targets, that ethical issues are obscured.

Organizations can experience moral myopia too, as Major League Baseball did during the steroid era. For
more than a decade, players got bigger, hit more home runs, and revenues rose dramatically. But the
League didn’t see it, even as evidence of steroid use was rampant.

Societies may also suffer moral myopia, as they often have done at the expense of minorities. For
instance, the treatment of Native Americans and the enslavement of African-Americans are two
examples of moral blindness in the history of the United States.
Moral myopia is closely related to ethical fading. In both cases, people’s perception of reality becomes
altered so that ethical issues are indistinct and hidden from view.

Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that contemplates what is right and wrong. It explores the
nature of morality and examines how people should live their lives in relation to others.

Moral philosophy has three branches.

One branch, meta-ethics, investigates big picture questions such as, “What is morality?” “What is
justice?” “Is there truth?” and “How can I justify my beliefs as better than conflicting beliefs held by
others?”

Another branch of moral philosophy is normative ethics. It answers the question of what we ought to do.
Normative ethics focuses on providing a framework for deciding what is right and wrong. Three common
frameworks are deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics.

The last branch is applied ethics. It addresses specific, practical issues of moral importance such as war
and capital punishment. Applied ethics also tackles specific moral challenges that people face daily, such
as whether they should lie to help a friend or co-worker.

So, whether our moral focus is big picture questions, a practical framework, or applied to specific
dilemmas, moral philosophy can provide the tools we need to examine and live an ethical life.

Moral Pluralism

Moral pluralism is the idea that there can be conflicting moral views that are each worthy of respect.

Moral pluralists tend to be open-minded when faced with competing viewpoints. They analyze issues
from several moral points of view before deciding and taking action.

Moral pluralists believe that many moral issues are extremely complicated. Thus, no single philosophical
approach will always provide all the answers.
For example, assume a building is on fire. A woman has the opportunity to rush inside and save the
children trapped in the burning building. But in doing this she may die, and leave her own child an
orphan. A moral pluralist would conclude that there is no definitive way to decide which is the better
course of moral action. Indeed, moral pluralism declares that it is sometimes difficult to choose between
competing values.

So, moral pluralism occupies a sensible middle ground between “there is only one right answer” as
moral absolutism says, and “there is no wrong answer” as moral relativism claims.

Moral Psychology

Moral psychology is the study of moral identity development, or how people integrate moral ideals with
the development of their own character.

Moral psychology differs from moral philosophy in that it studies how we make decisions, rather than
exploring what moral decisions we should make. It encompasses the study of moral judgment, moral
reasoning, moral character, and many related subjects at the intersection of philosophy and psychology.

Moral psychologists are interested in answering a wide range of questions such as, “What types of
thinking give rise to moral judgment, and how did they evolve?” “What levels of moral development are
found in children and animals?” and “What role do intuitions play in moral judgment and decision-
making?”

For centuries, philosophers have been contemplating fundamental issues such as “What does it mean to
be a ‘good’ person?” without resolving them. So, by adding the tools of psychology to those of
philosophy, we may be able to shine more light on such difficult questions.

Moral Reasoning

Moral reasoning applies critical analysis to specific events to determine what is right or wrong, and what
people ought to do in a particular situation. Both philosophers and psychologists study moral reasoning.

How we make day-to-day decisions like “What should I wear?” is similar to how we make moral decisions
like “Should I lie or tell the truth?” The brain processes both in generally the same way.
Moral reasoning typically applies logic and moral theories, such as deontology or utilitarianism, to
specific situations or dilemmas. However, people are not especially good at moral reasoning. Indeed, the
term moral dumbfounding describes the fact that people often reach strong moral conclusions that they
cannot logically defend.

In fact, evidence shows that the moral principle or theory a person chooses to apply is often, ironically,
based on their emotions, not on logic. Their choice is usually influenced by internal biases or outside
pressures, such as the self-serving bias or the desire to conform.

So, while we likely believe we approach ethical dilemmas logically and rationally, the truth is our moral
reasoning is usually influenced by intuitive, emotional reactions.

Moral Relativism

Moral relativism is the idea that there is no universal or absolute set of moral principles. It’s a version of
morality that advocates “to each her own,” and those who follow it say, “Who am I to judge?”

Moral relativism can be understood in several ways.

Descriptive moral relativism, also known as cultural relativism, says that moral standards are culturally
defined, which is generally true. Indeed, there may be a few values that seem nearly universal, such as
honesty and respect, but many differences appear across cultures when people evaluate moral
standards around the world.

Meta-ethical moral relativism states that there are no objective grounds for preferring the moral values
of one culture over another. Societies make their moral choices based on their unique beliefs, customs,
and practices. And, in fact, people tend to believe that the “right” moral values are the values that exist
in their own culture.

Normative moral relativism is the idea that all societies should accept each other’s differing moral
values, given that there are no universal moral principles. Most philosophers disagree however. For
example, just because bribery is okay in some cultures doesn’t mean that other cultures cannot rightfully
condemn it.
Moral relativism is on the opposite end of the continuum from moral absolutism, which says that there is
always one right answer to any ethical question. Indeed, those who adhere to moral relativism would
say, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

Morals

Morals are the prevailing standards of behavior that enable people to live cooperatively in groups. Moral
refers to what societies sanction as right and acceptable.

Most people tend to act morally and follow societal guidelines. Morality often requires that people
sacrifice their own short-term interests for the benefit of society. People or entities that are indifferent to
right and wrong are considered amoral, while those who do evil acts are considered immoral.

While some moral principles seem to transcend time and culture, such as fairness, generally speaking,
morality is not fixed. Morality describes the particular values of a specific group at a specific point in
time. Historically, morality has been closely connected to religious traditions, but today its significance is
equally important to the secular world. For example, businesses and government agencies have codes of
ethics that employees are expected to follow.

Some philosophers make a distinction between morals and ethics. But many people use the terms
morals and ethics interchangeably when talking about personal beliefs, actions, or principles. For
example, it’s common to say, “My morals prevent me from cheating.” It’s also common to use ethics in
this sentence instead.

So, morals are the principles that guide individual conduct within society. And, while morals may change
over time, they remain the standards of behavior that we use to judge right and wrong.

Values

Values are individual beliefs that motivate people to act one way or another. They serve as a guide for
human behavior.

Generally, people are predisposed to adopt the values that they are raised with. People also tend to
believe that those values are “right” because they are the values of their particular culture.
Ethical decision-making often involves weighing values against each other and choosing which values to
elevate. Conflicts can result when people have different values, leading to a clash of preferences and
priorities.

Some values have intrinsic worth, such as love, truth, and freedom. Other values, such as ambition,
responsibility, and courage, describe traits or behaviors that are instrumental as means to an end.

Still other values are considered sacred and are moral imperatives for those who believe in them. Sacred
values will seldom be compromised because they are perceived as duties rather than as factors to be
weighed in decision-making. For example, for some people, their nation’s flag may represent a sacred
value. But for others, the flag may just be a piece of cloth.

So, whether values are sacred, have intrinsic worth, or are a means to an end, values vary among
individuals and across cultures and time. However values are universally recognized as a driving force in
ethical decision-making.

Rationalizations

Rationalizations are invented explanations that hide or deny true motivations, causes, or actions. They
are the excuses people give themselves for not living up to their own ethical standards.

For example, most of us think of ourselves as honest people, yet studies show that most of us often lie a
little or cheat a little. In order to maintain our self-image as good people, we unconsciously invent
rationalizations to convince ourselves that what we did was not wrong, not really harmful, not our fault,
and so on.

According to Vikas Anand and his colleagues, common rationalizations include: “I know I shouldn’t have
done that, but my boss made me so I didn’t have any choice.” Or, “Others have done worse.” Or, “That
guy deserved to get ripped off.” Or, “If I hadn’t done it, someone else would have.”

Generally, rationalizations are most effective when they are not recognized as rationalizations. They are
dangerous because people are very creative rationalizers and, indeed,, often come to believe their own
excuses. As psychologist Joshua Greene notes, “rationalization is the great enemy of moral progress.”

Ultimately, rationalizations dull our sense of responsibility for our wrongful actions. So, if we wish to
truly be ethical people, we must carefully and consistently monitor our own rationalizations.
Role Morality

Role morality is the notion that people sometimes fail to live up to their own ethical standards because
they see themselves as playing a certain role that excuses them from those standards.

For example, say a person views herself as a loyal employee of a company. In that role, she might act
unethically to benefit her employer in ways that she would never do to help herself. To paraphrase
researcher Keith Levitt, the same person may make a completely different decision based on what hat –
or occupational role – she may be wearing at the time, often without even realizing it.

In one study people were asked to judge the morality of a company selling a drug that caused
unnecessary deaths when its competitors’ drugs did not. 97% of people concluded that it would be
unethical to sell the drug. Then, the researchers placed different people into groups, and asked each
group to assume the role of the company’s directors. Acting as directors, every one of the 57 groups
decided to sell the drug. They framed the issue as a business decision in dollars-and-cents terms. They
ignored the harmful impact their decision would have on others.

So, ethical behavior requires maintaining the same moral standards regardless of the roles we play at
home, at work, or in society.

Self-Serving Bias

The self-serving bias is the tendency people have to seek out information and use it in ways that advance
their self-interest. In other words, people often unconsciously make decisions that serve themselves in
ways that other people might view as indefensible or unethical.

Studies show that we can easily see how the self-serving bias affects others’ actions, but we have
difficulty realizing how it affects our own.

For example, doctors tend to believe that they are immune from the influence of gifts they receive from
pharmaceutical companies. But studies show those gifts have a significant effect on what medications
doctors prescribe. One study found that 64% of doctors believed that the freebies they received from
pharmaceutical companies influenced other doctors. However, only 16% of doctors thought it affected
their own actions.
So, the self-serving bias often blinds us to the ways in which we are prejudice in favor of ourselves.
Indeed, it can cause even the most well-intentioned of us to completely overlook our own bad actions.

Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory says that people live together in society in accordance with an agreement that
establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Some people believe that if we live according to a social
contract, we can live morally by our own choice and not because a divine being requires it.

Over the centuries, philosophers as far back as Socrates have tried to describe the ideal social contract,
and to explain how existing social contracts have evolved. Philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that
morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others
accept them too.

Social contracts can be explicit, such as laws, or implicit, such as raising one’s hand in class to speak. The
U.S. Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of America’s social contract. It sets out
what the government can and cannot do. People who choose to live in America agree to be governed by
the moral and political obligations outlined in the Constitution’s social contract.

Indeed, regardless of whether social contracts are explicit or implicit, they provide a valuable framework
for harmony in society.

Subject of Moral Worth

People are always considered subjects of moral worth.

A subject of moral worth can also include beings, such as animals or objects such as art, that are
vulnerable to harm and have importance to the moral community. The moral community includes all
people from birth to death. Theoretically, every person in the moral community has equal, natural rights
to moral protection.

According to philosopher Deni Elliott and others, all members of the moral community are subjects of
moral worth. However, not all subjects of moral worth are part of the moral community. For example,
animals, art, cultural artifacts, and the environment are not members of the moral community, although
they should be protected from unjustified harm.
As Elliott explains, say there was a fire at an art museum. Fire fighters should save people before saving
artwork. Even though art is a subject of moral worth, saving artwork is not as important as saving human
life.

So, while moral protection is given to all subjects of moral worth, the rights of members of the moral
community are most important.

Sustainability

Sustainability is the practice of living life in ways that maintain and protect natural resources such as
water, air, soil, wetlands, and forests.

Usually, sustainability is environmentally focused. As populations continue to grow, conservation of

natural resources and long-term planning are required to ensure that the needs of future generations
will be met.

Some people use the term sustainability more broadly to include anything that helps protect an
organization’s ability to operate. For example, companies that act sustainably often speak about their
Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR, activities. Many of these companies report on their Triple Bottom
Line, which is their impact on the world socially, environmentally, and financially.

So, while sustainability may encompass more than environmental protection, for the companies and
governments that practice sustainability, preserving natural resources is a priority. Indeed, many people
believe that we all have a moral obligation to practice sustainability.

Tangible & Abstract

The bias of tangible and abstract describes the fact that people are influenced more by what is
immediately observable than by factors that are hypothetical or distant, such as something that could
happen in the future or is happening far away.

For example, people may make decisions about natural resources without adequately considering the
impact those decisions may have on future generations, or on people in other countries.

In a famous example, the Pinto automobile flunked almost every routine safety test involving rear-end
collisions, but Ford put it on the market anyway in 1971. The company was racing to get a small car on
the market to challenge popular Japanese imports. Ford decided not to withhold the car from the
market to avoid the immediate negative consequences of delaying, like a stock price hit, employee
layoffs, and a public relations crisis. All those factors were very tangible for Ford. The considerations
against selling the car were much more removed and abstract. For example, any potential crash victims,
at that point, were nameless and faceless. Their injuries would occur, if ever, off in the future, and they
would likely be someone else’s worry.

So, the principle of the tangible and abstract underscores how we can become blind to the negative
consequences of our actions. Indeed, we make moral errors by discounting factors outside our
immediate frame of reference.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on outcomes. It is a form
of consequentialism.

Utilitarianism holds that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the
greatest number. It is the only moral framework that can be used to justify military force or war. It is also
the most common approach to moral reasoning used in business because of the way in which it accounts
for costs and benefits.

However, because we cannot predict the future, it’s difficult to know with certainty whether the
consequences of our actions will be good or bad. This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism also has trouble accounting for values such as justice and individual rights. For example,
assume a hospital has four people whose lives depend upon receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, a
kidney, and a liver. If a healthy person wanders into the hospital, his organs could be harvested to save
four lives at the expense of one life. This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest
number. But few would consider it an acceptable course of action, let alone the most ethical one.

So, although utilitarianism is arguably the most reason-based approach to determining right and wrong,
it has obvious limitations.

Values

Values are individual beliefs that motivate people to act one way or another. They serve as a guide for
human behavior.
Generally, people are predisposed to adopt the values that they are raised with. People also tend to
believe that those values are “right” because they are the values of their particular culture.

Ethical decision-making often involves weighing values against each other and choosing which values to
elevate. Conflicts can result when people have different values, leading to a clash of preferences and
priorities.

Some values have intrinsic worth, such as love, truth, and freedom. Other values, such as ambition,
responsibility, and courage, describe traits or behaviors that are instrumental as means to an end.

Still other values are considered sacred and are moral imperatives for those who believe in them. Sacred
values will seldom be compromised because they are perceived as duties rather than as factors to be
weighed in decision-making. For example, for some people, their nation’s flag may represent a sacred
value. But for others, the flag may just be a piece of cloth.

So, whether values are sacred, have intrinsic worth, or are a means to an end, values vary among
individuals and across cultures and time. However values are universally recognized as a driving force in
ethical decision-making.

Veil of Ignorance

All people are biased by their situations, so how can people agree on a “social contract” to govern how
the world should work.

Philosopher John Rawls suggests that we should imagine we sit behind a veil of ignorance that keeps us
from knowing who we are and identifying with our personal circumstances. By being ignorant of our
circumstances, we can more objectively consider how societies should operate.

Two primary principles supplement Rawls’ veil of ignorance: the liberty principle and the difference
principle.

According to the liberty principle, the social contract should try to ensure that everyone enjoys the
maximum liberty possible without intruding upon the freedom of others.
According to the difference principle, the social contract should guarantee that everyone an equal
opportunity to prosper. In other words, if there are any social or economic differences in the social
contract, they should help those who are the worst off. And, any advantages in the contract should be
available to everyone.

So, according to Rawls, approaching tough issues through a veil of ignorance and applying these
principles can help us decide more fairly how the rules of society should be structured. And fairness, as
Rawls and many others believe, is the essence of justice.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to
understand and live a life of moral character.

This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice. By
practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person develops an honorable and moral
character. According to Aristotle, by honing virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when
faced with ethical challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp
refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White
and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a
virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be
the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.

So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being. And, it gives us a
guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving ethical dilemmas.

Altruism

Altruism means acting in the best interest of others rather than in one’s own self-interest. Some people
believe altruism constitutes the essence of morality.

Although we often act selfishly, we also seem to be wired to cooperate with others. For example, studies
show that when people look for mates, they tend to look for kindness more than any other quality.
People’s moral judgments are often driven by emotion. And empathy for others seems to encourage
altruism. Another emotion, called “elevation,” appears to inspire altruistic behavior, too. We feel
elevation when we see another person act virtuously, such as by helping someone in need.

Altruism also builds social connections. For example, studies show that people who are altruistic tend to
be happier, to be healthier, and to live longer.

So, while altruism leads us to do what’s best for others, it also makes us feel good in the process.

Behavioral Ethics

Behavioral ethics is the study of why people make the ethical and unethical decisions that they do. Its
teachings arise from research in fields such as behavioral psychology, cognitive science, and evolutionary
biology.

Behavioral ethics is different from traditional philosophy. Instead of focusing on how people ought to
behave, behavioral ethics studies why people act as they do. Arguably, it is more useful to understand
our own motivations than to understand the philosophy of Aristotle.

Research in behavioral ethics finds that people are far from completely rational. Most ethical choices are
made intuitively, by feeling, not after carefully analyzing a situation. Usually, people who make unethical
decisions are unconsciously influenced by internal biases, like the self-serving bias, by outside pressures,
like the pressure to conform, and by situational factors that they do not even notice.

So, behavioral ethics seeks to understand why even people with the best intentions can make poor
ethical choices.

Bounded Ethicality

Bounded ethicality is the idea that our ability to make ethical choices is often limited or restricted
because of internal and external pressures.

Most people are usually ethical, but not completely so. Just like people are generally rational, but not as
completely logical as Spock from Star Trek. Our ability to be ethical seems to have limits.
For example, outside pressures, such as the tendency to conform to the actions of those around us, can
make it hard to do the right thing. So can internal biases, such as the self-serving bias, which often
causes us to subconsciously favor ourselves at the expense of others.

It’s important to understand that everyone is bounded ethically, even Mother Teresa. Indeed, we are all
susceptible to the cognitive biases and organizational or social pressures that limit our abilities to make
ethical decisions.

Conformity Bias

The conformity bias is the tendency people have to behave like those around them rather than using
their own personal judgment.

People seem to be more comfortable mimicking others, even regarding ethical matters.

For example, studies show that people are more likely to act in a prosocial manner, such as contributing
to charity or conserving water, if they see or hear that others are doing it too. Knowing that those
around us are making an ethical choice indicates it’s the social norm, and makes it easier for us to follow
suit.

Unfortunately, the flip side is also true. As psychologist Dan Ariely notes, “Cheating is contagious. When
we see others succeed by cheating, it makes us more likely to cheat as well.”

Indeed, the conformity bias can cause people to simply follow the herd rather than use their own
independent ethical judgment.

Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that judges whether or not something is right by what its
consequences are. For instance, most people would agree that lying is wrong. But if telling a lie would
help save a person’s life, consequentialism says it’s the right thing to do.
Two examples of consequentialism are utilitarianism and hedonism. Utilitarianism judges consequences
by a “greatest good for the greatest number” standard. Hedonism, on the other hand, says something is
“good” if the consequence produces pleasure or avoids pain.

Consequentialism is sometimes criticized because it can be difficult, or even impossible, to know what
the result of an action will be ahead of time. Indeed, no one can know the future with certainty. Also, in
certain situations, consequentialism can lead to decisions that are objectionable, even though the
consequences are arguably good.

For example, let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that
most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population.
Although the majority of people would benefit from this idea, most would never agree to it. However,
when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the
means.”

Corporate Social Responsibility

Corporate Social Responsibility, or “CSR,” refers to the need for businesses to be good corporate citizens.
CSR involves going beyond the law’s requirements in protecting the environment and contributing to
social welfare. It is widely accepted as an obligation of modern business.

CSR goes beyond earning money for shareholders. It’s concerned with protecting the interests of all
stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and the communities in which businesses
operate. Examples of CSR include adopting humane employee practices, caring for the environment, and
engaging in philanthropic endeavors.

Some people contend that companies owe no duty to society outside making as much money as possible
within the law. But those who support Corporate Social Responsibility believe that companies should
pursue a deeper purpose beyond simply maximizing profits.

Corruption

Corruption is the abuse of power or position for personal gain. There are many forms of corruption,
including bribery, embezzlement, and extortion.
For example, a purchasing agent for a company might take a bribe from a supplier. In return, the
purchasing agent will pay more than the usual price for the goods. The supplier and the agent pocket the
extra money at the expense of the company.

Or, for instance, in the case of political corruption, government officials might use their positions to
extort payments from a company that the government regulates.

Indeed, economic corruption impedes growth. And political corruption undermines good governance.
Unfortunately, both forms of corruption are still widespread across the world.

Framing

A frame of reference, or point of view, refers to the way we look at a given situation. How a person views
that situation can affect her understanding of the facts and influence how she determines right from
wrong.

Some frames minimize or even omit the ethical aspects of a decision. For example, studies show that if
people are prompted to frame a situation only in terms of money or economic interests, they often leave
out ethical considerations.

In a famous study, a day care center having difficulty with parents picking up their children on time
started charging a fine for being late. Parents then reframed the issue from an ethical one (“It’s not nice
of me to burden the staff in this way”) to a business one (“I can buy the staff’s time by paying this fine”).
Late pick-ups increased rather than decreased due to this change in the parents’ frame of reference.

So, by remembering to consider the ethical implications of any situation, we can keep ethics in our frame
of reference when making decisions.

Fundamental Attribution Error

The fundamental attribution error is the tendency people have to overemphasize personal
characteristics and ignore situational factors in judging others’ behavior. Because of the fundamental
attribution error, we tend to believe that others do bad things because they are bad people. We’re
inclined to ignore situational factors that might have played a role.

For example, if someone cuts us off while driving, our first thought might be “What a jerk!” instead of
considering the possibility that the driver is rushing someone to the airport. On the flip side, when we
cut someone off in traffic, we tend to convince ourselves that we had to do so. We focus on situational
factors, like being late to a meeting, and ignore what our behavior might say about our own character.

For example, in one study when something bad happened to someone else, subjects blamed that
person’s behavior or personality 65% of the time. But, when something bad happened to the subjects,
they blamed themselves only 44% of the time, blaming the situation they were in much more often.

So, the fundamental attribution error explains why we often judge others harshly while letting ourselves
off the hook at the same time by rationalizing our own unethical behavior.

Groupthink

Groupthink occurs when people’s desire to maintain group loyalty becomes more important than making
the best choices. People often find it hard to think and act independently in group situations. According
to psychologist Irving Janis, groupthink is “a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral
judgment that results from in-group pressures.”

Group members often suffer overconfidence and hold an unquestioned belief in the group’s competence
and morality. Dissent by group members may be discouraged and even lead to expulsion from the group.
Because people often want to avoid these punishments, they remain silent. This creates the illusion of
agreement or unanimity in the group.

Groups may also reach decisions, including moral judgments, which are more extreme than any single
member of the group originally supported. Unfortunately, if groupthink takes hold, group members may
not even question ethically dubious decisions and actions. For example, some people say that the Bush
administration’s decision to invade Iraq because of non-existent weapons of mass destruction was due to
groupthink.

Indeed, groupthink can cause us to value harmony and consensus over independent judgment, and can
lead to unethical behavior.

Hedonism

Hedonism is the belief that pleasure, or the absence of pain, is the most important principle in
determining the morality of a potential course of action. Pleasure can be things like “sex, drugs, and rock
’n’ roll,” but it can also include any intrinsically valuable experience like reading a good book.
Hedonism is a type of consequentialism, and it has several forms. For example, normative hedonism is
the idea that pleasure should be people’s primary motivation. On the other hand, motivational
hedonism says that only pleasure and pain cause people to do what they do.

Egotistical hedonism requires a person to consider only his or her own pleasure in making choices.
Conversely, altruistic hedonism says that the creation of pleasure for all people is the best way to
measure if an action is ethical.

Regardless of the type of hedonism, critics fault it as a guide for morality because hedonism ignores all
other values, such as freedom or fairness, when evaluating right and wrong.

In-group/Out-group

An in-group is a group of people who identify with each other based on a variety of factors including
gender, race, religion, or geography. Our tendency to distinguish between in-group and out-group
members has moral implications.

People may harm those whom they perceive to be in an out-group in ways that they would not harm in-
group members. For example, one study showed that when soccer fans viewed fans of their own team
being harmed, they felt empathy. But when they viewed fans of a rival team being similarly harmed, they
felt pleasure.

Likewise, people tend to make different moral judgments based on in-group and out-group distinctions.
When someone in our in-group misbehaves, the natural reaction is often to dismiss the behavior as no
big deal. But when someone in our out-group does the same thing, we will tend to judge the behavior
much more harshly.

Indeed, when automatic in-group and out-group distinctions replace conscious and thoughtful reflection,
we are more likely to harm one another and behave unethically.

Incrementalism

Incrementalism is the slippery slope that often causes people to slide unintentionally into unethical
behavior. It can happen when people cut small corners that become bigger over time. For example,
almost every instance of accounting fraud begins with people fudging small numbers that grow larger
and larger.
People’s brains are not adept at perceiving small changes. In addition, continued exposure to unethical
behavior is desensitizing and makes those activities seem routine. Indeed, we can easily lose sight of the
fact that those activities are immoral and possibly illegal.

Wrongdoers, and people in general, may never even realize that they are making a life-changing decision
when they make small, unethical choices. But in truth, as philosopher Jonathan Glover says,
incrementalism is how we “slide into participation by imperceptible degrees so that there is never the
sense of a frontier being crossed.”

Integrity

Integrity, said author C.S. Lewis, “is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.” Integrity is a
foundational moral virtue, and the bedrock upon which good character is built.

Acting with integrity means understanding, accepting, and choosing to live in accordance with one’s
principles, which will include honesty, fairness, and decency. A person of integrity will consistently
demonstrate good character by being free of corruption and hypocrisy.

Integrity is revealed when people act virtuously regardless of circumstance or consequences. This often
requires moral courage. Indeed, integrity is the critical connection between ethics and moral action.

Justice

Justice, for many people, refers to fairness. But while justice is important to almost everyone, it means
different things to different groups.

For instance, social justice is the notion that everyone deserves equal economic, political, and social
opportunities irrespective of race, gender, or religion. Distributive justice refers to the equitable
allocation of assets in society. Environmental justice is the fair treatment of all people with regard to
environmental burdens and benefits.
Restorative or corrective justice seeks to make whole those who have suffered unfairly. Retributive
justice seeks to punish wrongdoers objectively and proportionately. And procedural justice refers to
implementing legal decisions in accordance with fair and unbiased processes.

Justice is one of the most important moral values in the spheres of law and politics. Legal and political
systems that maintain law and order are desirable, but they cannot accomplish either unless they also
achieve justice.

Loss Aversion

Loss aversion is the notion that people hate losses more than they enjoy gains.

Studies show that people are more likely to lie and cheat to avoid losing something they already have
than to acquire it in the first place. For example, say a person makes an innocent mistake. Then, to avoid
injury to her reputation, she may intentionally lie to cover it up.

Loss aversion seemed to play a significant role in the General Motors scandal in 2014. For more than a
decade, the company failed to recall cars with faulty ignition switches. Even as evidence of the defect
grew, GM officials continued to deny that there was a problem to avoid the expense and embarrassment
of a massive recall.

The desire to keep what one already has can be overwhelming. Indeed, the natural aversion to loss can
lead us to make unethical and illegal choices that, ironically, might be more costly in the long run.