Parr Center 2005

1
Parr Center - 2005

• Obstacles to Applied Ethics Instruction in
  Schools of Business
• Prof. M.B. Metzger

2
A Caveat

• The comments that follow are the result of my
  often frustrating experience (15 years) trying to
  teach ethics to business students and business
  people.
• By presuming to speak on the subject I am not
  representing myself as someone who has found the
  silver bullet needed to get this job done (if
  indeed such a thing exists).
• The bigger pulpit observation

3
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• Several obstacles to effective applied ethics
  instruction exist that I suspect will be
  encountered, to varying degrees, by anyone trying
  to teach ethics to any group of college students
  or adults in the U.S. today.
• I used to always say that when I went into a
  classroom to try to teach a required ethics
  course I was facing two opponents that were far
  more powerful than I was
• Human nature
• Dominant intellectual trends of the 20th Century

4
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• Human Nature
• Defensive self-esteem maintenance
• Constructive vs. deconstructive strategies
• Relativizing Its all relative, isnt it?
• Excuses
• Everybodys doing it!
• If I dont do it, somebody else will.
• I had no choice.

5
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• Human Nature
• Egoism Limited Sympathy
• Limited Rationality
• Short-term, narrow focus
• Positive Illusions Self-serving Biases
• False Uniqueness Effect
• Illusion of Favorability (Optimism)
• Fundamental Attribution Error
• Poor reasoning skills of most students

6
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• 20th Century Trends?
• Cultural Relativism
• An article of faith in much of the university?
• Eagerly selectively embraced by those looking for
  an all-purpose excuse?
• Are the only choices relativism or absolutism, or
  is that a false dilemma?

7
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• 20th Century Trends?
• If God is dead, are ethics necessarily dead too?
• The importance of teaching secular perspectives
  on ethics?
• Economic
• Evolutionary
• G. J. Warnock the Object of Morality
• If God is dead, are ethics even more important?

8
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• 20th Century Trends?
• The absence of moral motivation
• For most people, most of the time, is the problem
  a lack of moral knowledge or a lack of moral
  will?
• Is the notion of a life according to principle,
  any principle, an alien concept to many of our
  students?
• Where in our curricula do we consciously
  cultivate our students moral identity? As
  religion has lost much of its force in the West,
  what have we replaced it with?

9
Obstacles to Ethics - General

• Those of us who do not believe in a religious
  moral law should still be troubled by its fading.
  The evils of religious intolerance, religious
  persecution and religious wars are well known,
  but it is striking how many protests against and
  acts of resistance to atrocity have also come
  from principled religious commitment.
• Jonathan Glover Humanity (1999)
• Q Can most humans lead a life of principle
  without the assurance that morality is grounded
  in something beyond human conventions and needs,
  and derives from something less transient and
  more reliable than human perceptions, practices,
  and beliefs?

10
Obstacles to Ethics - Specific

• Anyone attempting to teach applied ethics in a
  school of business or to a business audience is
  likely to face some other obstacles that are
  particular to the business context
• Self-selection bias mean more of a different kind
  of student?
• Engineering mentality?
• Untroubled by scandal?
• One study found decisions by entering MBA
  students less ethical than by entering law
  students.

11
Obstacles to Ethics - Specific

• Economic models of human behavior are pervasive
• assumptions about human nature e.g.,
  transaction cost economics presumes
  self-interest seeking with guile
• Does the descriptive tend to shade into the
  prescriptive?
• Ultimatum games and the supposed selfishness of
  economics majors ? selection effects or treatment
  effects?
• One group of authors argued MBA education causes
  a decline in moral development

12
Obstacles to Ethics - Specific

• Certain Specific Excuses/rationalizations are
  particularly prevalent
• Managerial duty to shareholders becomes an
  absolute, rather than qualified, duty.
• Interpretations of that duty tend to have a
  short-term, simplistic focus
• Competition means that activities not focused on
  bottom-line results are seen as impractical
• Ditto for pervasiveness of questionable tactics
  in many industries
• Description becomes prescription
• Sacrificial lamb arguments abound

13
Obstacles to Ethics - Specific

• Many (not all!) business school faculty have been
  trained in finance economics and share their
  students lack of thoughtfulness on ethical
  issues.
• Many lack any training in ethics feel
  uncomfortable raising ethical concerns for that
  reason or to avoid being seen as preachy
• Does their silence and the absence of discussion
  of ethical issues in most classes reinforce the
  notion that this subject isnt important or
  somehow just doesnt fit?

14
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• One of the basic ways people attack moral
  standards they dont find convenient is by making
  relativistic arguments.
• Provides a chance to do some critical thinking
  about a major way that people selectively attack
  moral standards.
• Note our possible hypocrisy here ? do we tend
  toward a double standard?
• For some people, an opportunity to experience
  some of the effects of belief bias first hand.

15
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• How did you react to the arguments as you read
  them?
• Did you dismiss any out of hand?
• Did you accept uncritically any of the
  counter-arguments you agreed with?
• Did you get upset mentally say something like
  Well, I dont care what he says, Im not buying
  it!

16
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Lets start our inquiry here by first looking at
  the basic argument.
• Then well explore the issues by talking about
  some of the thought questions that follow the
  dialogue.

17
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Basic cultural relativism argument?
• Different societies have differing moral codes.
• ?There is no objective standard that can be used
  to judge the relative merits of particular codes.

18
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• From this conclusion relativists draw several
  other subsidiary conclusions
• There is no objective standard that can be used
  to judge the relative merits of particular
  codes.
• ?Our own society's moral code is just one among
  many it therefore enjoys no special status.

19
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• From this conclusion relativists draw several
  other subsidiary conclusions
• There is no objective standard that can be used
  to judge the relative merits of particular codes.
  
• ?What's right in a society is determined by that
  society's moral code.

20
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• There is no objective standard that can be used
  to judge the relative merits of particular codes.
  
• What's right in a society is determined by that
  society's moral code.
• ?We are guilty of arrogance if we attempt to
  judge the conduct or institutions of other
  societies.

21
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Can you see any logical problems with the basic
  cultural relativism argument?
• Different societies have differing moral codes.
• ?There is no objective standard that can be used
  to judge the relative merits of particular codes.

22
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• It argues from a premise about what people
  believe to conclusion about what really is the
  case. e.g.,
• A believes x, but B believes y.
• ?Neither x nor y is true.
• Does it logically follow from the mere fact of
  disagreement that there is no objective truth in
  the matter?

23
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Is there any reason to think that if moral truth
  exists, everyone must know it?
• Is disagreement about morality surprising given
  whats at stake?
• Are fetuses human beings?,
• What are the economic effects of raising the
  minimum wage?
• Is global warming a real threat?
• If so, how much does human activity contribute to
  it?

24
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• In fact, even if everyone believes something is
  true or false, does that necessarily mean that
  it is?

25
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• In fact, even if everyone believes something is
  true or false, does that necessarily mean that
  it is?
• We ought to know from last year that this mode of
  argument is fallacious its called the argument
  from popularity.
• Note that by showing the logical problems with
  their argument we havent proven that
  relativists conclusion is wrong!

26
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• But in this case, the most that the fact of
  disagreement proves is the existence of
  disagreement.
• And it may not even prove that!

27
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Is it really true that different societies basic
  moral codes differ radically?
• Many moral philosophers evolutionary theorists
  argue theres
• a universal structure to human nature,
• or at least a universal set of human needs that
• lead to the adoption of similar moral principles
  in all cultures.

28
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Every society that is recognizably human will
  have some sort of rules about
• Property (how do we tell whats mine from
  whats yours?)
• Violence killing
• Promising
• The way to treat various groups (young, aged,
  strangers, handicapped)
• How to distribute resources ( what to do about
  those who have none)
• For human beings, there is no living without
  standards for living. were moral animals in
  this sense

29
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• Also, can we necessarily conclude from a
  difference in customs that theres necessarily a
  difference in ultimate values?
• Differences may be attributable to different
  physical circumstances or factual beliefs. e.g.,
  Eskimo infanticide or Hindu reverence for cows
• Also, note that while specific meanings may vary,
  concepts are held in common (e.g., honesty,
  bravery, trustworthiness)

30
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• We also should probably ask about the
  consequences of taking relativism seriously.
• If cultural relativisms conclusion is true, what
  then?
• We couldnt ever say customs of other societies
  (or other people) are in any way morally inferior
  to our own.
• Wed have to endorse the worst behaviors, as well
  as intolerance.

31
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• We couldnt consistently criticize our own
  societys code.
• We might have to change our ideas about social
  progress social reform.
• Q Why should the moral systems evolved by human
  groups be any more equal in their effectiveness
  than the economic systems or methods for treating
  illness that various groups have produced?

32
RELATIVISM DIALOGUE

• What can we learn from relativism?
• Some of our deeply held moral values may just be
  cultural artifacts.
• Fact that our values feel so right to us no
  guarantee that they are right.
• The Greeks Callatians answers to Darius
  question.
• Context can be important in shaping the morality
  of action ? respecting other people means taking
  their values into account.
• Recognizing your right to have your own values
  doesnt mean I have to accept your values.

33
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 7. Assume for purposes of discussion that Jake is
  right in his ultimate conclusion that it's
  morally acceptable to follow a "when in Rome, do
  as the Romans do" standard. Are there still some
  good reasons why multinational companies may not
  always be smart in following such a standard? To
  put it another way, what questionable assumptions
  would a company be making if it uniformly pursued
  a "when in Rome...." policy?

34
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• Assumption ? if the practice at issue is
  widespread in the host country, no negative
  consequences will follow from participating in
  it. True?

35
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• Assumption ? if the practice at issue is
  widespread in the host country, no negative
  consequences will follow from participating in
  it. True?
• Not necessarily. Even if you're doing the right
  thing, many people in your home market may not
  see it this way.

36
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• Assumption ? if the practice at issue is
  widespread in the host country, no negative
  consequences will follow from participating in
  it. True?
• Not necessarily. Even if you're doing the right
  thing, many people in your home market may not
  see it this way.
• Assumption ? that we wont get into trouble in a
  host country by doing things that are widespread
  in that country. True?

37
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• Assumption ? if the practice at issue is
  widespread in the host country, no negative
  consequences will follow from participating in
  it. True?
• Not necessarily. Even if you're doing the right
  thing, many people in your home market may not
  see it this way.
• Assumption ? that we wont get into trouble in a
  host country by doing things that are widespread
  in that country. True?
• Not necessarily. Examples Lockheeds bribery
  scandal scandals in Italy.

38
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 9. From a psychological perspective, why might
  someone in Jake's position be strongly drawn to
  the cultural relativism argument?

39
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 9. From a psychological perspective, why might
  someone in Jake's position be strongly drawn to
  the cultural relativism argument?
• It allows him to avoid a lot of psychic conflict
  - he doesn't have to feel guilt, doesn't have to
  take a stand risk negative career consequences,
  and may even tell himself he's made things better
  for workers (and he may have!).

40
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 9. Does the fact that you have strong
  psychological reasons for wanting to accept an
  argument necessarily mean that the argument is
  invalid? If not, what does it mean?

41
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 9. Does the fact that you have strong
  psychological reasons for wanting to accept an
  argument necessarily mean that the argument is
  invalid? If not, what does it mean?
• No. His need to accept the argument has no
  necessary logical connection with its validity.
• It means that Jake should guard against his
  natural tendency to be less critical of an
  argument he's highly motivated to accept. The
  fact that he wants to believe it doesnt mean
  its true.

42
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 10. Early on in the debate Jake says he isnt
  personally convinced of the dangers of PCBs. Why
  might Jake be pretty hard to convince at this
  point?

43
THOUGHT QUESTIONS

• 10. Early on in the debate Jake says he isnt
  personally convinced of the dangers of PCBs. Why
  might Jake be pretty hard to convince at this
  point?
• Because if they are dangerous that would mean he
  might have to feel some guilt about exposing
  workers to them, something he naturally doesnt
  want to do. Minimizing the danger minimizes the
  risk that hell feel qualms about his actions.

44
Why Morality?

• Our discussions so far about the sources of
  ethical problems the way we tend to think about
  morality may provide some answers to the central
  question of this chapter - Why morality?
• Were moral animals inclined by nature
  socialization to make moral judgments
  justifications to feel moral outrage.

45
Why Morality?

• As Bhide Stevenson suggest, there are positive
  social benefits to market regimes based on trust.
  Without moral constraints moral suasion, all
  were left with to manage human behavior
  disagreement is
• Coercion (legal otherwise)
• Perceived self-interest (unreliable?)
• Lets explore both of these answers in greater
  detail, starting with G.J. Warnocks ideas about
  the object of morality - ideas in which human
  nature plays a major role.

46
The Object Of Morality

• Possible to imagine sentient beings whose life
  situation such that moral issues would be
  irrelevant to them.
• Would sentient mountains concern themselves with
  ethical issues?
• Would Kants race of beings (who always saw the
  right thing to do and always did it)?
• But thats not our situation! Ours is such that
  things are likely to turn out badly.
• But its not hopeless, because there are things
  we could do to make it better.

47
The Object Of Morality

• The Human Predicament
• Biological needs
• Things that people want
• Limited information intelligence limits on our
  ability to choose well
• Resource limitations necessity of choice!
• Necessity of dissatisfaction
• Limited rationality
• Limited sympathies

48
The Object Of Morality

• Q The key factor(s)?

49
The Object Of Morality

• Q The key factor(s)?
• Limited rationality limited sympathy because
  they determine what use we make of the resources
  we do have.

50
The Object Of Morality

• Q The most important factor? Why?

51
The Object Of Morality

• Q The most important factor? Why?
• Limited sympathy because rationality, like
  knowledge resources, can be used for good or
  bad ends. If reason is a slave of the
  passions, thats not necessarily a good thing.
• The rationalist response?

52
The Object Of Morality

• Q The general object of morality?

53
The Object Of Morality

• Q The general object of morality?
• To contribute to the betterment - or
  non-deterioration - of the human predicament,
  primarily by seeking to countervail limited
  sympathies and their most damaging effects.
• Q This is a secular vision, but is it
  necessarily inconsistent with the tenets of most
  faiths?

54
The Object Of Morality

• Q The general object of morality?
• To contribute to the betterment - or
  non-deterioration - of the human predicament,
  primarily by seeking to countervail limited
  sympathies and their most damaging effects.
• Q This is a secular vision, but is it
  necessarily inconsistent with the tenets of most
  faiths?
• No. Most would probably like to see some
  improvement in the human predicament most would
  like to see some increase in sympathy.

55
The Object Of Morality

• Q Is it purely accidental that the Golden Rule
  plays such a central role in most religions?
• What is hateful to you, do not do to your
  neighbor. Rabbi Hillel
• Do not do to others what you do not want others
  to do to you. Confucius
• The great lesson of mankind is to do as we
  would be done by. Seneca
• Do unto others as you would have them do unto
  you. Jesus

56
The Object Of Morality

• Q How does Warnocks test will it contribute to
  the betterment or non-deterioration of the human
  predicament? fare as an objective standard for
  testing competing ethical norms?

57
The Object Of Morality

• Q How does Warnocks test will it contribute to
  the betterment or non-deterioration of the human
  predicament? fare as an objective standard for
  testing competing ethical norms?
• What other purpose could a secular standard have?
• We can disagree about what constitutes an
  improvement, but once we agree on that (e.g.,
  an improvement in living standards) its possible
  to identify some values as superior to others.
  Also, some values may be more consistent with our
  natures than others.

58
The Object Of Morality

• Q What does the human predicament suggest about
  the moral claims of efficiency?

59
The Object Of Morality

• Q What does the human predicament suggest about
  the moral claims of efficiency?
• Under conditions of scarcity resource use is a
  moral issue.
• Efficient generation use of resources makes it
  possible to
• Meet more needs wants
• Make fewer difficult trade-offs

60
The Object Of Morality

• Q Why might it be important to a manager in a
  capitalistic system to know whether efficiency
  has any moral claims?

61
The Object Of Morality

• Q Why might it be important to a manager in a
  capitalistic system to know whether efficiency
  has any moral claims?
• Managers should be concerned due to their
  complicity in the market system if economic
  efficiency has moral value, then those who
  provide it have a mission with positive moral
  content.

62
The Object Of Morality

• The Economic Perspective
• ethics
• ?
• ? trust
• ?
• ? transactions costs
• ?
• ? economic activity
• Reinforcement for Warnocks view of the role of
  ethics?

63
The Object Of Morality

• The Evolutionary Perspective Wright
• We have an evolved tendency toward reciprocal
  altruism and the hard-wired emotional programming
  that makes altruism work.
• But while tit-for-tat is an evolutionarily
  stable strategy, persistent cheating can also
  create a stable environment.

64
The Object Of Morality

• The evolutionary perspective Wright
• Q Grounds for concern if cheating behaviors are
  becoming more widespread in the U.S.?

65
The Object Of Morality

• The evolutionary perspective Wright
• Q Grounds for concern if cheating behaviors are
  becoming more widespread in the U.S.?
• The more people who cheat, the less cooperative
  behavior pays, and thus, the more likely more
  people are to cheat.
• And rationalize it by saying everybody else does
  it or If I dont do it, somebody else will?

66
The Object Of Morality

• Q Does Wrights discussion of Tit-For-Tat
  furnish any support for Bhide Stevensons
  description of most business peoples strategy
  for business dealings?

67
The Object Of Morality

• Q Does Wrights discussion of Tit-For-Tat
  furnish any support for Bhide Stevensons
  description of most business peoples strategy
  for business dealings?
• Yes. Business peoples basic strategy is a good
  approximation of Tit- For-Tat they cooperate,
  punish cheaters when they can it makes sense to
  do so, and are willing to deal with cheaters
  again.
• They may not retaliate as much as the theory
  would suggest, but the complexities of their
  environment may explain that.

68
The Object Of Morality

• The Psychological perspective Rue
• Altruism based on kinship is too narrow
  reciprocity too unreliable to produce broad
  enough social cooperation.
• But together they provide an excellent base of
  cooperation that is exploitable by cultural means
  ethical norms for increasing the confluence of
  interest between individuals.

69
The Object Of Morality

• The Psychological perspective Rue
• A principal means for this expansion of common
  interests is the self-esteem motivator."
  Conscience?
• Q Does Rues account support or contradict
  Warnocks idea about the way in which morality
  works to improve (or prevent the further
  deterioration of) the human predicament?

70
The Object Of Morality

• The Psychological perspective Rue
• A principal means for this expansion of common
  interests is the self-esteem motivator."
  Conscience?
• Q Does Rues account support or contradict
  Warnocks idea about the way in which morality
  works to improve (or prevent the further
  deterioration of) the human predicament?
• It supports him. Morality operates to extend
  cooperative behavior beyond the confines of
  limited sympathy reciprocity, increased
  cooperative behavior improves the human condition.

71
71
71
71