The Ethics Alarms Rationalizations List keeps growing, and proof that it will eventually be much, much longer is in the fact that the most recent additions are old, common, and popular. Human beings are so talented at concocting lies that make them feel better about doing the wrong thing, or continuing to support friends, family members, colleagues or personal heroes who do the wrong thing. I have been meaning to include The Tortoise’s Pass for quite a while, and then a commenter on the post about the charter school that banned dreadlocks used “They must be doing something right!” as a cornerstone of her comment defending the rule. I realized that I had neglected a classic. Well, “Better late than never!”
The whole list, now 34 strong, is here. Here are the new entries:
33. Success Immunity, or “They must be doing something right!“
We often hear this when a successful individual or organization is justly criticized for unethical habits, routines, tendencies or policies, and defenders recoil at the suggestion that a successful formula might be altered in any way. Thus have cruel hazing traditions by winning football coaches received official passes from greedy university presidents, and careless and risky management practices been ignored by voters, as long as an elected leader’s policies haven’t imploded yet. Success immunity is related to #10, the King’s Pass, but it is even more illogical: it assumes that the wrongful and irresponsible aspects of an individual’s or organization’s conduct must somehow be part of a magic recipe for success, rather than a serious flaw in that recipe that can and should be removed. “The chef puts a roach in his soup? Well, it’s delicious! He must be doing something right!” I’m sure he is, but that something isn’t the roach. This rationalization embodies the popular and over-used conservative mantra, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” The problems with that cliché are 1) things that aren’t broken can still be improved, 2) things that are broken will often keep working until they fall apart and someone is hurt, and 3) “not broken” is a long way from “the best it can be.” “They must be doing something right!” carries this illogic to the point of absurdity by asserting that what clearly is broken should still not be fixed, because the individual or organization continues to be successful in spite of it, on the Bizarro World theory that the perceived success could somehow be a result of it. Like many rationalizations on this list, Success Immunity twists common sense to avoid admitting that obviously unethical conduct is what it is: wrong.
34. The Tortoise’s Pass: “Better late than never”
Indeed, when it comes to rectifying or ending unethical conduct, late is definitely better than never. This is, however, nothing but a particularly insidious employment of the worst of all rationalizations, #21, The Comparative Virtue Excuse or “There are worse things!” Late is also better than setting the neighborhood on fire, but finally doing what should have been done before harm resulted is nothing to be proud of, unless the agency taking ethical action never had the opportunity of ability to do it sooner. Yes, abolishing slavery in 1865 is better than never abolishing it at all, but the 13th Amendment doesn’t erase the wrong or relieve the accountability of allowing slavery to continue from 1776 until the ban. Absolutely, ending “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was long in coming and necessary, but it is still a disgrace that it took so long to end a disgraceful policy. The worst use of The Tortoise’s Pass, perhaps, is when it is used to excuse from just punishment women who knowingly sent innocent men to prison on their false accusations of rape, and who much later come forward to recant after an attack of conscience. It is true that if you are hitting me over the head with a brick, I am grateful when you stop, and whenever you stop, the end to my pain is appreciated. Don’t expect me to thank you, however, or to relieve you of the responsibility for the consequences due for hitting me at all.
I don’t get #34 being a rationalization of unethical behavior.
The rationalizations are all used to excuse unethical behavior. Among other examples, you use it to excuse the ethical decision to end slavery. If it is meant as a rationalization to excuse the slavery or unethical behavior up to the change point, I don’t see it….the behavior was clearly identified as unethical by the group seeking to change it which is why it was changed. By the group that didn’t see it as unethical: it received it’s own set of rationalizations during its continuance. But “Better Late than Never” isn’t a rationalization of unethical behavior, because the behavior has been identified and admitted as unethical — and the rationalizations are designed to aid the unethical in avoiding identifying and admitting behavior to be wrong.
The rationalization is used to excuse the unethical conduct of not doing the right thing earlier. That’s a real rationalization. The rape cases are the perfect example. I don’t care that a woman comes out in her mid-twenties and admits a false rape accusation—she still should go to jail. But thye argument, too often accepted by the prosecution, is “What matters is that she did the right thing.” Yes, that matters, but the fact that she did the wrong thing for years matters at least as much, and maybe more.
I can understand that then, in individual actions such as the false accusers or the person beating your face in with a brick, deciding to stop, and saying “hey better late than never!”.
I don’t understand it with slavery: as there were efforts to end it from the beginning, there just happened to be efforts opposed to those efforts as well.