Between Our Thoughts and Our Actions Lie Our Ethics by Linda Hedenblad

Philsoc Student Essay Prize – Hilary 2013 – Highly Commended Between Our Thoughts and Our Actions Lie Our Ethics By Linda Hedenblad

As an instructor of ethics in Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) I have observed counselors’ capacity for rationalization, and believe it to be the source of most ethical violations. Current decision- making models and ethical codes of conduct do not adequately address this issue. I propose a decision-making model that draws from philosophy to understand and break the pattern of rationalization.

This essay is divided into four sections. The first section examines the concept of rationalization using David Hume’s “Theory of Mind.” The second section outlines the ethical decision-making errors of VR counselors. The third section recommends modifications to existing decision- making models. The final section addresses potential arguments.

Section 1: Rationalizations and Hume Rationalizing is a “thinking trap” that VR counselors fall into when breaching ethics. Rationalizing, as used in this essay, is the attempt to align our action with our motivation, thereby structuring a justification for our action (Shermer p. 5). David Hume’s theory of mind may help us understand the process of rationalization.

David Hume was an 18th-century philosopher who believed “moral judgments are essentially the deliverances of sentiment” (Dennis 2012). Hume considered our actions to be driven by our passions (feelings), not by reason (thought). If we accept Hume’s proposition that our behavior is motivated by our “passions”, what happens when passions lead us to unethical behavior? If reason is a slave to passion (Hume 1739), I postulate that this slavery contributes to our capacity for “rationalizing” behavior.

Hume divided passion in two categories: direct and indirect. “The direct passions, which include desire, aversion, hope, fear, grief, and joy, are those that arise immediately from good or evil, from pain or pleasure.”

“The indirect passions, primarily pride, humility (shame), love and hatred, are generated in a more complex way, but still involving either the thought or experience of pain or pleasure.” (Cohon p. 7)

In the next section, I examine how our direct passions may conjure rationalizations.

Section 2: Steps to Unethical Behavior Hume’s theory can be used as a structure for examining the steps of rationalization: A) A counselor experiences a direct passion. B) The action correlating with the direct passion could be deemed unethical and cause disapprobation. C) The process of rationalizing dispels the disapprobation and justifies the desired action (motivated by the direct passion).

1 1 D) Rationalization leads the counselor to an indirect passion. E) Indirect passion gives justification and motivation to the unethical act. F) The counselor commits an unethical act, thereby appeasing the direct passion, turning “vice” into “virtue.”

This chart shows four examples of this rationalization process in action:

INITIAL RATIONALIZATION MOTIVATING UNETHICAL IMPRESSION (Reasoning/Idea) IMPRESSION ACTION (Passion) (Passion)

“I would love to be “Everyone else is doing Indirect, motivating Leave work early out in the sun!” it; I deserve this as passion = Pride much as anyone!” Direct Passion = Desire

“I am in love with my “This is a special Indirect, motivating Entering into client.” circumstance; passion = Love inappropriate boundary rules don’t relationship with Direct Passion = apply here” client Desire

“This paperwork is “I’m just doing what is Indirect motivating Falsifies SO STRESSFUL! It’s best for the client” passion = Pride paperwork impossible to get this client’s signature.”

Direct Passion = Aversion

“I may not meet my “This person is really Indirect motivating Creates a scenario federal quota this hard to work with. If I passion = Anger that pushes the year. If I don’t meet can get them to quit client from my numbers, I might services, I can serve services get into trouble.” more people.” Direct Passion = Fear

2 2 In each case, the counselor justifies unethical actions based on indirect passions. Hume believed, and I concur, that indirect passions do not motivate behavior (Cohen p. 7). In the previous examples, the counselor does not admit to herself that direct passion is motivating her behavior. The counselor, uncomfortable with her initial desires, rationalizes her thinking until she produces an indirect passion that is morally palatable.

Our need to logically defend an action can lead us to rationalize. Appealing to a deeper sense of morality may help us recalibrate our moral compass, redirect our passions, snap us out of a cycle of rationalization, and improve our ethical decision-making.

Section 3: Ethical Decision Making Decision-making models are commonly used in applied ethics to encourage critical thought. While extremely useful at times, these models are largely ineffective in addressing counselor rationalizations.

I hypothesize that these models may be improved by adding questions that evoke our morality. Asking philosophical questions will help liberate ethical reflection that is drowning in rationalization. Below are three philosophical questions:

From Social Constructivism: How would I feel telling a supervisor or colleague about this?

From Deontology, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Johnson 2012): What if this is something that everyone did? Could it be “Universal Law”?

From Deontology, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative (Johnson 2012): Do I believe people should be treated as an end in themselves, and how does my decision reflect that belief?

The chart on the following page modifies scenarios from my earlier example to demonstrate the potential impact of moral questioning on decision-making:

3 3 INITIAL RATIONALIZATI MORAL MOTIVATING ETHICAL IMPRESSION ON QUESTION IMPRESSION ACTION (Passion) (Reasoning/Idea) (Passion)

“I would love to “Everyone else is How would I feel Indirect, Stay at be out in the doing it” telling a motivating work until sun!” supervisor or passion = quitting colleague about Humility time Direct Passion = this? (shame) Desire Idea: “I would love to quit early. Either I will take a few vacation hours, or stay until my shift ends.”

“This paperwork “I’m just doing what What if this is Indirect Does not is SO is best for the client” something that motivating falsify STRESSFUL! It’s everyone did? passion = paperwork impossible to get Could it be Humility this client’s “Universal signature.” Law”?

Direct Passion = Idea: “If Aversion everyone falsified paperwork, there would be no trust.”

“I may not meet “This person is really Do I believe Indirect Works with my federal quota hard to work with people should be motivating difficult this year. If I because they have treated as an end passion = client to don’t meet my such a severe in themselves, Humility obtain numbers I might disability. If I can and how does my employmen get in trouble.” get them to quit decision reflect t. services, I can serve that belief? Direct Passion = more people.” Fear Idea: “This person is the most deserving person of my help. I will need to find other ways to meet my goals.” 4 4 Section 4: Discussion Moral relativists may argue that because the concept of a moral law cannot be applied universally (Joyce 2009), it is inappropriate to add moral questioning. The two questions from the Categorical Imperative, and the single Social Constructivist question, are well suited to the applied ethics of Vocational Rehabilitation. The questions complement the program’s mission and its ethical principles (empowering persons with disabilities.) Within this context, these questions are not intended to address all moral issues, but to act as an aid in breaking the pattern of rationalization.

Kantians may argue that the only moral act is one done out of a sense of duty, or respect, for moral law (Johnson 2012) and that this application is a misuse of the Categorical Imperative. The mandate for the VR counselor is to act ethically in dealings with clients and the VR system. The VR code of ethics does not dictate that counselors must think ethically; they are only required to act ethically. Therefore, the internal dialog becomes secondary to the action. From a consequentialist perspective, it is worth employing new methods to increase our moral awareness. I propose that in the applied ethics of VR it is the act, not the intention that is judged.

Conclusion Between our thoughts and action lie our ethics. By better understanding our natural compulsion to rationalize our decision-making, I believe we can teach students of applied ethics to employ a richer form of critical thought.

I propose a decision-making model that includes the following questions for counselors to consider: 1. “How would I feel telling a colleague/supervisor about this? (Social Constructivism) 2. “What if this is something that everyone did?” (Deontology) 3. “Do I believe people should be treated as an end in themselves, and if I do, how does my decision reflect that belief?” (Deontology)

By combining questions that directly address morality with existing decision-making models, counselors may be led out of patterns of rationalization and into a higher level of ethical thought and action.

Bibliography:

Bagnoli, Carla, “Constructivism in Metaethics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Cohon, Rachel, “Hume’s Moral Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

5 5 Cottone, “A Social Constructivism Model of Ethical Decision Making,” Journal of Counseling & Development, Winter 2001, Volume 79.

Denis, Lara, “Kant and Hume on Morality,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

FitzPatrick, William, “Morality and Evolutionary Biology,”The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Hume, David , A Treatise of Human Nature, Public Domain e-book location 5936, originally published 1739.

Johnson, Robert, “Kant's Moral Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Joyce, Richard, “Moral Anti-Realism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Millican, Peter (2007-06-14). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Oxford World’s Classics) Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

Morris, William Edward, “David Hume,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .

Narvaez, Darcia, “Moral Complexity: The Fatal Attraction of Truthiness and the Importance of Mature Moral Functioning,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, University of Notre Dame, http://pps.sagepub.com.

Pinker, Steven “The Moral Instinct,” New York Times Magazine, January 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Ridley Matt, The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation, Published by the Penguin Group, Great Britain, 1996.

Tenbrunsel Ann E., and Messick, David M., “Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior,” Journal of Social Justice Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, June 2004.

6 6