Why you may not be as ethical as you think | Michael Hood | TEDxUniversityofMississippi
Summary
TLDRIn this engaging talk, a former FBI agent explores the nuances of ethical decision-making. Through interactive tests and real-life examples, he challenges the audience to reassess their own ethical standings, highlighting the concept of 'psychological distance' that often rationalizes unethical behavior. The speaker delves into 'bounded ethicality' and 'ethical fading,' explaining how these cognitive biases can lead to morally questionable actions. He concludes with practical strategies to counteract these tendencies, emphasizing the importance of multiple perspectives and moral reminders to guide ethical conduct.
Takeaways
- 😌 The speaker begins by asking the audience to rate their own ethics on a scale of 1 to 10, with most identifying themselves as a 7 or above.
- 🕵️♂️ The speaker's background with the FBI involved investigating financial crimes, revealing that many criminals were ordinary people.
- 🤔 The speaker admits to being a 4 or 5 on the ethics scale, suggesting that most people may overestimate their own ethical standing.
- 📺 Sharing a Netflix password is presented as a common but ethically questionable behavior, with most people rating it as not very bad.
- 🍽️ In contrast, 'dine and dash' is seen as a severe unethical act, with most people rating it as very bad, illustrating a double standard.
- 🧠 'Psychological distance' is introduced as a concept explaining why some unethical behaviors seem more acceptable than others.
- 👀 The speaker suggests that viewing a company as a faceless entity can lead to rationalizing unethical behavior within it.
- 🚗 Speeding is used as an example of 'denial of injury,' where individuals don't see the harm in their actions despite the potential for causing accidents.
- 🏆 Nobel Prize-winning author Daniel Kahneman's concepts of 'System 1' and 'System 2' thinking are discussed to explain how people make decisions.
- 🚘 The Ford Pinto case study illustrates 'ethical fading,' where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making processes with dire consequences.
- 🤝 Encouraging multiple perspectives and being reminded of one's morality are strategies to counteract unethical tendencies and make better decisions.
Q & A
What is the initial ethical self-rating activity described in the script?
-The initial activity involves participants rating their own ethical behavior on a scale of one to ten, with one being not ethical at all and ten being absolutely ethical.
Why does the speaker claim to rate himself a five or four on the ethical scale?
-The speaker rates himself a five or four to illustrate that people often overestimate their own ethics and to challenge the audience to reconsider their self-assessment.
What is the significance of sharing a Netflix password with someone outside your family as discussed in the script?
-Sharing a Netflix password is used as an example to highlight how people may rationalize unethical behavior as acceptable due to psychological distance, even though it's a form of theft.
How does the speaker contrast the act of sharing a Netflix password with dine and dash?
-The speaker contrasts these acts to show the difference in how people perceive the severity of unethical behavior based on the perceived presence or absence of a victim.
What is psychological distance, as explained in the script?
-Psychological distance is a mental construct that allows individuals to create a mental separation between their decisions and the consequences of those decisions, often leading to rationalizing unethical behavior.
Why do people find it easier to steal a wallet full of cash from a family in an amusement park versus finding money blowing in the wind?
-People are more likely to return a lost wallet because they can imagine the direct impact on the family, whereas finding money with no immediate owner present creates psychological distance, making it easier to rationalize keeping it.
What concept does the speaker introduce to explain how people can engage in unethical behavior at work without feeling guilty?
-The speaker introduces the concept of 'bounded ethicality,' which describes how psychological and social pressures can cause individuals to act unethically without their awareness.
What are the two systems of the brain described by Daniel Kahneman, and how do they relate to ethical decision-making?
-Daniel Kahneman describes two systems of the brain: System 1, which is the reactionary and unconscious system that makes quick decisions, and System 2, which is the rational and conscious system used for thoughtful consideration. The speaker suggests that System 1 can lead to unethical decisions due to its fast, unconscious nature.
What is the Ford Pinto case mentioned in the script, and what ethical issue does it raise?
-The Ford Pinto case refers to a car model that had a design flaw causing it to explode in rear-end collisions. Ford executives chose not to fix the flaw due to a cost-benefit analysis that prioritized financial considerations over ethical ones, leading to injuries and deaths.
How can generating multiple perspectives help in making ethical decisions?
-Generating multiple perspectives can help individuals consider different viewpoints and potential consequences of their actions, which can lead to more ethical decision-making by reducing the impact of psychological distance and ethical fading.
What final question does the speaker pose to the audience regarding their self-rated ethics?
-The final question posed by the speaker is a reassessment of the audience's self-rated ethics, encouraging them to reflect on their behavior and decisions after the insights provided during the session.
Outlines
🔍 Ethical Self-Assessment and Psychological Distance
The speaker begins by engaging the audience in a self-assessment of their ethical standing on a scale of one to ten. The majority rate themselves as seven or above, indicating a generally positive self-perception. The speaker, a former FBI investigator of financial crimes, challenges this by suggesting that many ordinary people engage in unethical behavior without recognizing it. Using the example of sharing Netflix passwords versus dine and dash, the speaker illustrates how psychological distance can affect our ethical judgments. While sharing a password seems minor, dine and dash is seen as severe theft, despite both being forms of theft. The concept of psychological distance is introduced as a mental construct that allows us to justify actions by creating a perceived separation between our decisions and their consequences.
🚦 The Impact of Psychological Distance on Ethical Decisions
The speaker continues to explore the concept of psychological distance, using scenarios involving finding a lost wallet and encountering money blowing in the wind. The audience's reactions to these scenarios highlight how the presence or absence of a perceived victim can influence our ethical choices. The speaker then connects this to workplace ethics, questioning whether employees should selectively follow company rules. The idea of 'denial of injury' is introduced, where individuals justify unethical actions by convincing themselves that no harm is done. The speaker references Daniel Kahneman's work on 'Thinking Fast and Slow,' discussing the two systems of the brain: System 1, which is fast and intuitive, and System 2, which is slow and rational. The speaker suggests that most of our decisions are made unconsciously by System 1, leading to 'bounded ethicality,' where our ethical standards can be compromised by psychological and social pressures.
🚗 Ethical Fading and the Ford Pinto Case
The speaker delves into the concept of 'ethical fading,' where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making processes, using the Ford Pinto case as a prime example. The Ford Pinto had a design flaw that made it prone to exploding in rear-end collisions, a risk that Ford executives were aware of but chose to ignore due to cost considerations. The speaker criticizes the cost-benefit analysis that led to this decision, arguing that it omitted ethical implications. The speaker suggests that if the executives had considered the ethical dimensions, such as their own children driving the Pinto, they might have made a different choice. The speaker emphasizes the importance of considering multiple perspectives and ethical implications in decision-making to avoid unethical outcomes.
🌟 Strategies for Ethical Decision-Making
In the final paragraph, the speaker offers strategies to counteract ethical fading and make better ethical decisions. These include generating multiple perspectives, considering the opposite decision, and having a devil's advocate to challenge one's own views. The speaker also suggests that being reminded of one's moral identity can lead to more ethical behavior, as demonstrated by studies showing a decrease in unethical behavior when moral leaders' images were displayed. The speaker concludes by encouraging the audience to empower others to provide different perspectives and to remind themselves of their moral identity, thus promoting better decision-making and a better world. The speaker ends with a reflective question on the audience's self-assessed ethical standing, prompting them to reconsider their initial ratings in light of the discussion.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Ethical
💡Psychological Distance
💡System One and System Two
💡Bounded Ethicality
💡Ethical Fading
💡Cost-Benefit Analysis
💡Dine and Dash
💡Multiple Perspectives
💡Devil's Advocate
💡Moral Reminders
Highlights
The speaker begins by asking the audience to rate their own ethicality on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being not ethical at all and 10 being absolutely ethical.
Most people rate themselves as a 7 or above, indicating a general positive self-assessment of ethical behavior.
The speaker, a former FBI agent, shares that many white-collar criminals were ordinary people, challenging the audience's self-assessment.
The speaker admits to being a 4 or 5 on the ethical scale, suggesting that ethicality is complex and not always straightforward.
The audience is asked to judge the ethicality of sharing a Netflix password, with most considering it a minor offense.
In contrast, the act of dining and dashing is seen as a severe ethical violation, highlighting a disparity in ethical judgments.
The concept of psychological distance is introduced to explain why some unethical behaviors are perceived as less severe.
The speaker discusses how people can commit unethical acts at work while maintaining a facade of normalcy.
The audience is challenged to consider the ethical implications of their actions in the workplace.
Daniel Kahneman's work on System 1 (reactive brain) and System 2 (thinking brain) is mentioned to explain decision-making processes.
The idea of bounded ethicality is presented, where everyday decisions are often made unconsciously and can lead to unethical outcomes.
Ethical fading is defined as the process where ethical considerations are removed from decision-making.
The Ford Pinto case study is used to illustrate the consequences of ethical fading and cost-benefit analyses that ignore ethical implications.
The speaker suggests generating multiple perspectives as a method to counteract ethical fading and make more ethical decisions.
The concept of having a Devil's Advocate within decision-making processes is proposed to encourage ethical consideration.
The presence of moral leaders' images in the workplace can serve as a reminder of ethical standards and reduce unethical behavior.
The speaker concludes by encouraging the audience to reflect on their ethicality and consider the impact of their decisions on others.
Transcripts
[Music]
thank you
all right how about we start this
session with a test
no no worries here this test is not
going to be hard but what I want you to
do is I want you to rate yourself
ethically on a scale of one to ten one
you are not ethical at all
10 you're absolutely ethical five you're
in the middle
so go ahead give yourself a number
how many of you gave yourself a number
higher than seven let's hear you clap if
you gave yourself a number higher than
seven that's it we got a lot of sevens
out there you know I've asked about 3
000 people this question
and 95 to 98 of them say I'm a seven or
above
but when I was with the FBI
I specialized in financial crime white
collar crime embezzlement
fraud
and what I found is that a lot of the
people who I investigated were ordinary
people just like you just like me your
neighbor your colleague your co-worker
and so now
I'm going to say something's probably
going to surprise you
looking at this scale right here
I am a five
in reality I'm probably a four
and I think by the end of this session
by the end of our time together I think
you're going to find out that you
are closer to a five than what you care
to admit
so are you ready for the next part of
the test
let's do it right
so in this one I'm going to give you a
behavior and what I want you to do with
these behaviors right here is Judge them
on how bad they are one not bad at all
who cares 10 whoa that is bad hold on
now five in the middle
so here comes your first Behavior
how bad is it to share your Netflix
password with someone outside your
family
oh I hear the laughing I see the faces
right now remember FBI taught me
non-verbal there may be a few guilty
people out there right
when I ask this question to people I
usually get a run of answers between one
and ten but predominantly
I get people that say it's a one it's a
two three at most
and then they give me the excuses
they're like everybody does it so who
cares
and then it's like I paid for my Netflix
subscription it says I can do whatever I
want with it because I paid for it
and then finally
I usually get
it's Netflix they're not even real
who cares
so keep that in mind because I'm going
to ask you a second question I want you
to use the same scale that we're using
right now
how bad is it to go into a local
restaurant order food eat it and leave
without pay
even though you have the means to pay
the food was fine the service was fine
it's a classic dine and dash what number
would you give that how many Clapper
allowed if you're going to give it above
an eight
there we go so you're telling me that's
really really bad isn't it
why if we look at both those behaviors
together
aren't they both stealing
but yet one is accepted you'll say one
oh Netflix one two or three but a dine
and dash oh that that's a ten that's
that's bad you don't do that
and so as I started working my cases in
the FBI one of the things that just
fascinated me was how did people do this
how could they come into work and just
say hey how you doing
and in the meantime they're stealing the
company blind
and I became fascinated I wanted to know
how and so I started looking into these
things and what you just experienced
is something called psychological
distance
and it's a mental construct it's our
ability in our brains to create a
distance between our decisions
and the consequences of those decisions
and so when you think of Netflix like
that's not even a real person
but when you see that waiter that
waitress all of a sudden that becomes
very real
so now I want you to imagine this for me
imagine that you are in an amusement
park
and you see a family up ahead of you
about 50 feet ahead of you
husband wife whoever it is they got
their wallet out they get something out
of their wallet they put it in their
pocket their purse their backpack
whatever they have and as they place it
back there
it falls on the ground
you yell at them
but they don't hear you
so you finally get up to that spot where
the wallet fell you bend down you pick
it up
and as you pick it up you see it is
loaded with cash hundred dollar bills
how many of you are going to return that
wallet with all the cash intact
all of you
right
all of you I have no doubt
but let's contrast that with this
you're going to the amusement park with
your family but you hate crowds so you
go an hour late because you don't want
to deal with the rush of people coming
in
and so you have to park a little bit
farther back and it's a windy day but as
you come up to them you come through the
cars you look in between two cars and
you see something moving something
blowing in the wind
and it catches your eye because it's
green
and you bend down
you pick it up it's three fresh 100
bills
you look around
nobody's there
how many of you are going to be like me
and in the investigation right there and
puts that money right in my pocket
right
that's what we're talking about with
psychological distance
we create this mental distance in our
head that makes it seem there is no
victim
when you think of Netflix
that they don't matter they're not real
so what you're doing is you're denying a
victim
what I want you to do right now
think about the organization you work
for
think about the organization you want to
work for
what is the first image that pops in
your head
because if it's a logo a slogan a
product
then you may have already created the
psychological distance you need
to rationalize your behavior
whereas if you thought of a colleague
you thought of a client you thought of a
person
that makes a little bit different that's
like the waiter or the waitress when
they're right in front of you
so now if you're ready
I've got one more behavior for you
how bad is it to exceed the posted speed
limit
how many of you going to say negative
numbers on this one right
right but since again if we go back to
the workplace our workplace is full of
rules policies and procedures
are we allowed to choose which ones we
want to follow and which ones we don't
and what this is called is denial of
injury
yeah I'm breaking the speed limit but
I'm not hurting anybody
but aren't speed limits put in place to
protect people from accidents and even
death
and so I started thinking like how do
these people how do they go home at
night and not feel bad
what goes on in their brains
that make them say it's okay that I'm
doing this
and so I ran across an author by the
name of Daniel Kahneman
he wrote a book called Thinking Fast and
Slow actually won a Nobel prize in
economics for the book and he describes
the brain in two different ways
the first one is he calls it system one
okay and so imagine this imagine you're
on a country road it's late at night
Sun's going down but you still have
light you're going about 30 40 miles an
hour you come around the corner and you
see a deer in the middle of the road
what are you going to do
are you going to honk are you going to
stop you're going to break
you're going to Swerve
or if you're like me I'm gonna speed up
and hit it then I'm going to take it
home and eat it
right
so in that moment
did you just react to the stimulus in
front of you
Kahneman calls that system one your
reactionary brain
then he has this thing called system two
and how many of you have ever had the
wonderful experience of buying a car
and negotiating with that salesperson
back and forth and you consider does
this fit in my budget is this a fair
price
and you use that brain you have to think
Kahneman calls that system two that is
your rational thinking brain and so now
what I want you to consider
which do you spend more time in each and
every day
system one your reactionary brain or
system two your thinking brain
and let's do another test
I'm going to ask you a simple question
Kahneman and other researchers have used
this question to kind of illustrate the
difference between system one and system
two so as you know the answer and most
of you will know the answer go ahead and
say it out loud
okay here we go
how many of each animal did Moses take
on the ark
zero I hear some zeros there I hear some
twos whoever said zero
is correct
because Moses
didn't take anybody on the ark it was no
uh
system one makes 95 of your decisions
every single day
and it does it
on an unconscious level where you're not
even aware it's happening those of you
chose two what happened system one shot
that answer to the front of your brain
and before you even thought about it you
said two
that's the power
of system one and it leads to something
called bounded ethicality
it's described as the
psychological pressures
the social pressures and the normal
processes of your brain
that cause us to act in certain ways
that sometimes are unethical without our
knowledge
two professors Dr Max bazem and Dr Anne
Tim Brunson have done a lot of work on
this and what they found is that bounded
ethicality
when we have an interest in an outcome
it causes us sometimes to deviate from
our ethical baselines in other words
it causes us to do things that we
ordinarily wouldn't do
Dr Tim buncele also worked with an
individual named Dr David Messick and
they came up with a concept called
ethical fading
and you see the definition right there
ethical fading
is when you system one specifically
makes a decision
and somehow your brain has taken the
ethical Dimensions out of the decision
completely
and what we may be doing today
in the business schools at this
University at universities all around
the United States all around the world
we may be inadvertently teaching our
students how
to make decisions with ethical fading
taking the ethical Dimensions right out
of it
and it's called a cost benefit analysis
yep a cost benefit analysis I'm an
accountant and I know there's value in a
cost benefit analysis but as you look at
the calculation you look at the cost you
look at the benefit you make your
decision
you don't always take the ethical
implications of the decision
and so I take you to this case that has
been researched over and over again it
involves a car called the Ford Pinto
and for those of you younger than me the
Ford Pinto with this strange looking car
that if you hit it from behind at 30
miles per hour or more
it exploded
and the people inside would suffer
severe burns or even death
here's the thing
Ford Executives knew prior to creating
the first Pinto that there was a design
flaw and that this was going to happen
and they okayed the production of the
pinto anyway
and so as they looked into it they said
how did this happen
they came down to that cost benefit
analysis and they figured out that to
fix the design flaw in the Ford Pinto it
would cost are you ready
eleven dollars per car
eleven dollars now move that to today's
dollars it's a little bit more but not
too much
but when they did the cost benefit
calculation
the cost to fix the pinto was way more
than the anticipated lawsuits the
anticipated brand damage
and so what did they choose
they choose to manufacture the pinto and
people died and suffered because of it
but if you look at the basis of the
decision that cost benefit analysis
there was no ethical implications but
if I could have asked the Ford
Executives one question
one question that would have brought the
ethical Dimensions right back in front
of their face
I would have asked them he says imagine
that your 16 year old son or daughter
comes up to you and says Mom Dad I'd
like to get a pinto for my 16th birthday
if you were the Ford Executives who have
this information
what would you have said to your kid
that ain't happening
but you see right there how the ethical
Dimensions all of a sudden can come into
play if we think about them so how what
can we do as people to make sure that we
don't go down that unethical path we
don't succumb to ethical fading and one
of those ways is to generate multiple
perspectives
how many of you have ever made a
decision or you're talking to somebody
and you made a comment says wow you know
what I hadn't thought about that
one of the things that you can do as a
person is when you come to a decision
ask yourself what would happen
if I made the exact opposite decision
or what would happen if the decision I'm
about to make would affect me how would
I feel if I had to suffer the
consequences because that would change
your perspective
another method that you can do to create
these multiple perspectives is have
somebody a colleague a friend someone
you trust be your Devil's Advocate
President Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs
invasion a massive failure realized that
they had not generated enough
perspectives and so they made a bad
decision
he went to his brother Robert the
Attorney General of the United States
and he gave him this instruction he said
Robert your job from this point forward
is to find out how I'm going to decide
on any topic
and then argue the exact opposite
even if you don't agree with it
and what he was doing he's trying to
generate perspectives that he hadn't
thought of looking at the problem from
multiple formats trying to see different
ways to handle it
and if you do that research shows that
you're more likely to make ethical
decisions
two other professors Dr Miriam kuchaki
Dr Street Hari Desai did some
interesting work in organizations
and what they did is imagine your
workplace
they put up pictures of morally moral
leaders
people that as you look at their picture
you just you accept them as moral
leaders people like Gandhi people like
Mandela and they study the ethical
profiles of the organization after they
put up these pictures and guess what
happened
unethical Behavior dropped
because you see when we're reminded of
our morality
we act more ethically
so if you can find a way to remind
yourself that you are a moral person
you may stay true to your ethical
baselines
and isn't that what you want
I spent 25 years of my life as an FBI
special agent putting people in jail
I want to spend the next 25.
trying to keep people out
and so if you Empower people around you
to give you the opinion that you may not
want to hear
you empower the people around you to
generate these different perspectives
and you remind yourself that you are a
moral person
then maybe we can overcome psychological
distance
and ethical fading
and maybe we can make better decisions
and if we make better decisions
can we make this a better world
now I've got one last question for you
before we go
how ethical are you again
thank you everybody
[Applause]
[Music]
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)