The Ethics Alarms list of rationalizations—the lies and fallacies we seduce ourselves with to make unethical conduct seem reasonable— continues to grow. Here are some worthy additions, bringing the current total to 31. I doubt that we have them all captured yet…not by a longshot.
28. The Altruistic Switcheroo: “It’s for his own good” – This rationalization is a pip, because it allows one to frame self-serving, unethical conduct as an act of good will and generosity. Cheating the young sprout will teach him to be more careful the next time, and it’s just a pleasant coincidence that you benefit from the deception. It is true that misfortune carries many life lessons, that what doesn’t kill us often makes us stronger, and that what hurts today may be the source of valuable wisdom and perspective later, but it really takes a lot of gall to cheat, lie to, steal from or otherwise harm someone else and claim it will be a good thing in the long term. Yet an amazingly large number of people possess this much gall, because the Altruistic Switcheroo is very popular, especially among parents who want to convince themselves that bad parenting is really the opposite. A marker for this rationalization is the statement, “You’ll thank me some day”—the specious theory of the sadistic parent who named his son “Sue” in the famous Shel Silverstein song made famous by Johnny Cash. No, he won’t.
29. The Prospective Repeal: “It’s a bad law/stupid rule” – Citizenship, an ethical value, requires obeying the law, but a lot of people convince themselves that laws are voluntary, and that it is somehow ethical to violate “bad” ones, defined, of course, as those that are inconvenient, burdensome, or that stop you from doing what you want to do. Laws embody the ethical values of society, and if one of them seems wrong to you, you are nonetheless obligated to follow it as your part of the social contract. To do otherwise is unethical. Your ethical options when faced with a law you disagree with are limited: write and speak in opposition to the law (or rule), in hopes of changing the societal consensus; work within the system and with other like-minded citizens to change the law; find a legal and ethical way around it; or violate it openly as a matter of conscience, and accept the penalty—civil disobedience. It isn’t ethical to violate what you think is a bad law while it is still a law, because this creates an obvious breach of the Rule of Universality: if everyone followed that course, we would have chaos and anarchy. There are bad rules and laws, no doubt about it. Still, it must be the group—society, the culture, the system, process—that decides when one of them needs to be amended or eliminated. The individual who does this unilaterally is threatening the stability of society, and that’s unethical no matter what the law is.
30. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now” – Ethics is never “a luxury.” It is slyly effective to describe it as such, however, and those who do so usually believe it—which means you should sleep with one eye open when they are around, watch your wallet, and never turn your back on them. Saying ethics is a luxury means that the speaker believes that one should be good and fair when it is easy and benefits him or her, but when problems loom and crises have to be faced, ethics are optional, and to be discarded when convenient. This attitude is another calling card of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ infamous “Bad Man,” the law-abiding citizen who will cut your throat for his own benefit if he can find a legal loophole that lets him do it. In a true crisis, ethical values are often the only things standing between us and catastrophic misconduct in the throes of desperation and panic; they aren’t luxuries, they are life-lines. When you hear yourself saying, “I’ll do anything to fix this! Anything!” it is a warning, and the ethics alarm needs to start ringing, hard. Grab those ethical values, and hold on to them. They are the last thing you can afford to be without at such times.
31. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing”—This is a fantasy rationalization, and therefore a wonderfully versatile one. Just pick the great, famous and admired man or woman whom you think would be most likely to engage in the wrongful conduct you are considering, and you will immediately feel better about engaging in it. If you are doing no worse than Churchill, of Gandhi, or Lincoln, or Martin Luther King or Princess Diana, after all, how bad can you be? This is a clever rationalization, but a transparent one. Andrew Jackson was a racist and a killer, but he isn’t admired for being a racist and a killer. FDR was vindictive and ruthless, but those aren’t the qualities that made him a great President. Lincoln, Jefferson, Oprah—it’s easy to cherry-pick flaws among the great and famous, but absurd to use those aspects of their personalities as objects of emulation. It is true: Clarence Darrow would have bribed a jury (and did); Arthur Miller would have neglected a disabled son; Jackie Kennedy would have lived a lie. The fact that we can find someone objectively remarkable who engaged in just about any crime or unethical act we can imagine merely proves that even the best of us fail to negotiate the challenges of life perfectly. It isn’t an excuse to stop trying to do the best we can in our own lives.
Ethics Alarms 
Nice update. There are some valid points on #29, however I must give some insight to ponder before accepting a global thought that breaking all law is unethical.
As you are aware, law is a very complex beast where even the best of lawyers only really specialize in a specific area. For complete obediance, one must first know all laws, and although, ignorance may not be an excuse in the eyes of the justice system, this is unfair to enforce where one was previously unaware. There are other situations (extreme example), where in order to save someones life, they must steal a car — agreed that stealing a car is unethical, and this is border on “the ends justify the means”, however this IS an extreme example on where one might act unethically in order to be ethical.
I agree that there is a process (usually), in order to voice contradiction with law, however sometimes — that process is not heard and more drastic measures must be taken (see SOPA dispute, and current issue with world leaders working to pass global control and censorship of the internet — yes: again ! — in yet another sneaky fashion : ref: http://google.com/takeaction ) — some things require a rallying cry of the people to fight back against this sinister behavior. SOPA was canned because of many leading websites interrupting the service (unethical behavior) to display a message to visitors (ethical behavior) regarding what was going on and the imminent danger it posed. After, given that it was closing in on poll times and seeing the cat was out of the bag — the decision was unanimous to cancel the idea (however the agenda remained on the plate to continue to seek ways to force censorship on people — further impeding the little freedom(s) we have left).
I would argue – Passing a rule as a law and using it to control the population is not necessarily one that is socially accepted by the masses. The light that was shone upon SOPA was something we can thank large corporations (and hackers) for — via technology that did not exist when other more sinister laws had been passed with ulterior motives and without public consensus — usually in the form of an “Act”, but enforced as “law”.
So consider, if a law is in effect that is not socially accepted; given that ethics is based on this premise, would it still be unethical to not abide by that rule ? I do not believe it would be unethical to do so — but it is very circumstantial.
Another great example of this (and highly controversial), is the legalization of marijuana — i personally do not partake in this endeavor; however, in direct contradiction with “law” it is something that is socially accepted, regardless of consequence that the “law” may provision. If it is something so widely accepted (and has been), then it stands to reason this law was passed without society in mind (and in the US, the rules surrounding this are extreme and severe punishment for carrying/consuming even small amounts).
While #29 touches around a subject on ethics that definitely deserves a place in your “Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions” list, I think it needs to be more refined, and holds a lot of valid points for discussion from both sides of the fence. Some laws are put in place with complete disregard for what is socially acceptable — some good, some “bad”.
As stated (in context) from another post on this site, – sometimes doing the right thing ethically means doing what is right (subjective) regardless of whatever barriers may be placed in your way — this does include “breaking the law” if it is necessary in order to do the right thing (eg, save someones life).
Sorry but if a law is wrong, as in segregation, you not only should disobey the law you have a moral obligation to do so.
Even if it is true, that principle should not apply to the government or its agents.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Jack does try to distinguish between civil disobedience and a la carte adherence to laws. In #29 as it is currently written is there are several absolutist statements, that all law breaking is unethical, which seem to conflict with previous statements regarding open and public civil disobedience as being ethical options to combat bad laws.
All law-breaking is unethical is the rule. The law that is unequivocally unlawful and unjust is the exception, and may require going outside the system to address—as in civil disobedience. The problem, obviously, is that unequivocally wrongful laws are still subject to disagrrement and debate. There are citizens who consider the Federal Income Tax as unethical as segregation. You still have a duty to pay it.
The key distinction, as I read it, is that civil disobedience as a form of protest MUST include accepting the consequences. Most of the “a la carte adherence to laws” advocates are trying to avoid the consequences.
Smoking pot (or insert any other form of law-breaking) in secret because you think you should be able to is a far cry from doing so publicly and/or in full view of law enforcement and expecting or even wanting to be arrested for it.
–Dwayne
Exactly. Breaking the law is unethical—openly defying the law is principled. The law defines penalties for disobedience, and accepting the penalty is complying with the social contract. An illegal law is something else entirely, like an illegal order in the military. A citizen has a duty to defy that, but like the soldier who defies a direct order, he’d better be right.
The new #28 got me thinking about another possible rationalization that’s a close cousin: “He had it coming.”
This is the notion that because the victim made some sort of mistake or poor decision, that it’s okay to act unethically towards them because it’s really the victim’s fault.
“Sure, I stole that car, but the owner left it unlocked with the keys in it.”
“Sure, I took that person’s money, but I’m the one who found his lost wallet.”
“Pat Rogers should have known that his message could be used against him.”
I’m sure I could roll back through the blog and find 10 more examples in less than an hour.
It’s different from #28 in that it’s not “for their own good” but rather “their own fault”–the victim’s prior actions make the unethical act somehow no longer unethical. It’s also different from “Tit for Tat” or “I Deserve This” in that it doesn’t begin with the victim directly wronging the rationalizer in some way (or some perceived way); rather it is simply a mistake or a poor decision.
Thoughts?
–Dwayne
You’re right, it should be in there. It’s a flat out omission by me—in various materials I’ve used in programs, this is listed as one of the top 10 rationalizations, usually as the “They’re the bad guys” rationalization, or “He had it coming/ He deserved it.” I think I talked myself into believing that the “Tit for Tat” excuse covered it, but it really doesn’t, though they are closely related.
Thanks. “He Had It Coming” deserves a separate entry.
I would like to see something written regarding the following very popular rationalizations used by those in power to oppress “free” countries (and others).
1. If I tell them what the want to hear, and I win, I don’t need to comply because no one else ever has. – “Promising the World”, and delivering nothing.
2. It is ok if I have tea with the person we are “at war” with. Let the battle continue and allow military employees to believe (rationalize – depending on access to this information) that it is for the “greater good”.
3. When people are murdered en-mass in other countries by soldiers, nothing is said, or mourned, and seldom punishment (even if it was “civilians” as they “could be carrying something”), yet when just one of your own soldiers is killed in this process of that country fighting back, it becomes headline news. I almost feel like there should be a score board showing the us vs them kill count.
4. Passing policy / law behind closed doors on major topics rather than informing the public first such as SOPA/PIPA — which took hackers and large corporations to bring this to the news.
5. Invading another country to pass a judgement on someone who broke no laws in your country, and was not even a citizen of your country (aka – Megaupload/Megavideo/etc)
6. Confiscation of property and money as “proceeds of crime”, and not returning it upon a finding of “innocence” — let alone adding compensation on top for the trouble caused, and inconvenience of having nothing.
7. Passing the buck to a corporation, so they can have the power that the country is supposed to be responsible for because the people rose up and fought back against what was trying to be done —- eg. The people fought back en-mass against SOPA/PIPA — however, nice secret meeting being held about passing that buck over to ITU so that this agency which is not governed by any specific countries laws, can make a generalized enforcement of censorship — effectively enacting SOPA/PIPA . Where do the people of any single country stand up to fight against when something goes completely international like this with NO base country to say no to. This is an easy out for any system of government to pass the buck and say — nothing we can do…. it’s international, so we are “just following the rules” — yet they contributed to the creation of it.
regarding #7, people in general do not realize that a Treaty overrides any of the rights of any country, and therefore is VERY dangerous. If the US entered into a Treaty with another country that required the US to disallow guns for it’s citizens, that WOULD supersede your bill of rights — this type of action is highly unethical, and I can not express in words how disturbing this is. Perhaps you can articulate or express the above concepts a bit better Jack .
1. “Everybody does it.”
2. “It’s for a good cause.”
3. There’s nothing unethical about this. Your position would embrace the “They started it” or “Tit for Tat” rationalization. We don’t let others set our ethical standards.
4. See 1 and 2 above.
5. “We’re the good guys/ They are the bad guys”
6. Now there you have me. There’s no rationalization that covers this, unless it’s the invlaid argument that “bad guys” don’t have rights, or “two wrongs make a right.”
7. “It’s for a good cause”—the ends justify the means.
regarding #7, people in general do not realize that a Treaty overrides any of the rights of any country, and therefore is VERY dangerous. If the US entered into a Treaty with another country that required the US to disallow guns for it’s citizens, that WOULD supersede your bill of rights — this type of action is highly unethical, and I can not express in words how disturbing this is. Perhaps you can articulate or express the above concepts a bit better Jack .
There are a lot of people out there who “have it coming”!