I am a 53 year old teacher. I have double major in Speech and Criminal Justice resulting in a Bachelor's degree from Northeastern State University in Oklahoma and a law degree.
Cognitive dissonance is one of the important concepts in ethics, how so often our actions and ideas are in conflict and how we manage to reconcile what to so many would seem simple hypocrisy. Mintz explains the concept and its significance in a brief and clear essay.
Below are the first two paragraphs from the blog post –
Cognitive Dissonance and Ethical Decision-Making
A highly ethical person knows his or her values, principles and beliefs. Those values, principles and beliefs would then determine one’s actions when faced with an ethical dilemma. A person who does not understand or fully know his or her values, principles and beliefs, might act in an ethical situation without thinking through the consequences to others, known as System 1 thinking, rather than first considering how our actions affect others, or System 2 thinking. Later on, rationalizations may be used to reconcile actions to ethical beliefs and reduce cognitive dissonance, that is, the disconnect between what our belief says we should do and what we actually do.
A person who always justifies or rationalizes his actions has a flexible belief system or is lacking in the moral virtues and consistency in behavior. In effect justifications and rationalizations become the belief system of that person and relativistic’ situational considerations inform decision-making rather than sound ethical principles.
The Ethics Sage Explains Cognitive Dissonance
As always, in the case of this author, I recommend that you visit his web site and read the full article. And maybe stay and look at some of his other work.
If you read, overhaul, and instead saw the word, abolish, in your mind, you are reading the article correctly. The House Financial committee lives in a world where the virtuous capitalist bankers who came within a hair of destroying the world economy in 2007 are being victimized by (well, people like me) regulators when in reality, they are the engines of wealth who if liberated will make us all happy and free.
The house would recreate the conditions that produced the disaster. It appears that facts and history have no place in this discussion. The idea that the “free market, “ a myth similar to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, will right all wrongs and make us free has many adherents in the House of Representatives.
This is a very sad article about the degradation of the one of the world’s natural wonders and the Australian government’s role in the ecological disaster. I recommend you read it in full.
The Koch Brothers Are Trying To Handpick Government Officials. We Have To Stop Them. – is the title of the article. It explains how the Koch Brothers are using the influence to choose candidates for various government posts. It’s a damning indictment of a government being primed to run for the benefit of billionaires and their lackeys.
Entitled – Another Giant Pension Fund Divested From Oil, Coal, And Gas Companies, this article talks about the surprising and growing success of the effort to divest funds from fossil fuels. This is a form or opt out shareholder democracy similar in some ways to the South African economic boycott of thirty years ago. Is there a strong moral element in this movement? I think so and it is vital if capitalism is to survive along with societies that use those means of running an economy that a solid conception of right and wrong be returned to decision making.
I was cruising the news and commentary sites looking for a significant business ethics subject to write about today. I wanted to avoid talking about the “Stanford Swimmer Who Raped Unconscious Woman” story. As the media buzz accumulated I felt that there were plenty of people writing about it and my two cents weren’t needed. But then I read the father of the criminal had called for mercy saying his son had only got “twenty minutes of action.”
At first when I read it this morning, it was annoying like a fly buzzing about my consciousness but by this afternoon, it had morphed into an angry dragon and I knew what I was going to write about.
There is so much wrong here.
First, we have the usual two tiered system of justice which I have written about before. A privileged youth is given a sentence which seems totally out of proportion to the crime. This is definitely one of those cases.
This crime is vicious. He raped an unconscious woman. And yet the judge found that, “A prison sentence would have a severe impact on him,” – Yes, I suppose it would. Prison is supposed to do that. But the judge gave the rapist six months in jail and probation as opposed to the prosecution’s recommendation of six years.
Second, he doesn’t seem to have gotten the message that he did something wrong and far worse, he doesn’t seem to care.
Third, we have the father’s statement from the probation pre-sentencing report. Many commentators have focused on the “twenty minutes of action” comment but I tend to focus on the first line: “As it stands now, Brock’s life has been deeply altered by the events of Jan 17th and 18th.”
It gives the impression that his son didn’t do anything but was the victim of some natural event like a rainstorm or a stiff breeze. A more honest statement might have read – “My son, Brock has severely damaged his future prospects by raping an unconscious woman.” But no. You can read the entire statement without getting the impression that Brock did anything wrong until you think about the implications of the “twenty minutes of action.” It is possible to perceive that Brock may have chosen to spend that twenty minutes unwisely.
But the father’s statement gets even better if we go down about two thirds of the way. You’ll love this line. I did. “He has no prior criminal history and has never been violent to anyone including his actions on the night of Jan 17th 2015.”
He raped a woman without violence? How does that work? Was it a soft, pleasant assault? I am going to go with – No, it wasn’t. It was a rape, an act of violence.
There is no responsibility here. As far as I can tell, the family is running with the idea that there are two victims both assaulted by un-indicted evil monster of binge drinking. Drinking does not and will never excuse rape. Not to mention the fact, that Brock was sober enough to run away when caught.
There is only one victim, the woman who was violated. And there is not another victim but a criminal, a criminal who did everything under the circumstances to evade justice. And this criminal and his family have failed to own up to what has been done.
And yet, the father does not feel his son should be imprisoned because Brock “is totally committed to educating other college age students about the dangers of alcohol consumption and sexual promiscuity.”
That’s right. Brock is now a sort of missionary carrying a vital message to his fellow youth that people should avoid large quantities of alcohol and sex. Except Brock isn’t a victim of alcohol or promiscuity. Brock took advantage of an unconscious woman to perform an act of violation. Brock is a convicted felon, a criminal who did the unthinkable.
No man of decency or with a shred of honor could bring himself to violate a sleeping woman much less a drunk or incapacitated one. A gentleman’s duty when confronted with an unconscious woman is one of protection and help. He must insure her safety and get her assistance.
This criminal failed in his duty and directly harmed a helpless woman. There should be punishment befitting this crime.
What is the lesson we can derive from this sorry mess of a case? Very simple. If you have money, position and power and can make a statement blaming your crime on a climate of binge drinking and promiscuity, you can evade many of the consequences for your actions. That’s wrong.
That is not a lesson I am content with but it is the one we have.
There is a genuine disgust and cynicism about the government and how it functions here in the United States. I share that disgust and like so many find many other institutions in this society lacking.
However, we can vote. It is a slender reed but it may yet prove to be important enough to inaugurate some kind of meaningful change in a system rigged against us.
If you can vote in a primary, please vote. But above all vote in the November election. “They” are always saying that this is the most important election in your lifetime. But this time, it looks like that is the call. We have a history making election that could change all of our lives in so many different ways.
I know that there are those who want to blow up this system. And to you, I say, I understand. I get the pain of feeling that the government has forgotten you, sold your jobs and your future. But there is still time, there is still hope, there are still possibilities.
Vote one more time. This is great nation that has forgotten that all must share in economic benefits not just the wealthy and the well-connected. But that can be just temporary forgetting. The path is still here. The course is still to be found. We can get back on track and have a government that serves the interest of us all.
I ask you to give it another chance and participate in this election.
One of my friends, (from Ireland and Scotland) has written something about voting a power that I like and value. Maybe you’ll like it too.
Voting? What was that? What sort of silly loon would waste their time casting a vote? Those that did, marked their paper and chucked it down the pan – for all the good it would do in making things any different for them. In our 300 years of London rule the ballots of Scotland had as much use in Westminster politics as toilet paper. Voting on polling day was the ruin of a decent walk. Change only came about when we re-opened our own parliament up in Edinburgh, and then the transformation began. It turns out, after all, that we are genetically programmed to make political decisions and think political thoughts. Somewhere it was written:
Today I appoint you over nations and over kingdoms, to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.
These were always highfalutin words, best kept I thought for school assemblies, until it dawned on me that they were speaking about us. We’ve only been kept in chains by our own consent; be that as working people under management and ownership or a nation under the heel of an empire. It was we ourselves who put up the red stones on John Finnie Street, and it was our own people who broke the backs of nations to prosper imperialists, and just as surely as we did all that we can rip it all back down and build it again to the prosperity of ourselves. It is us who have been appointed over our nation, to pluck up and pull down a kingdom, to overthrow it and utterly destroy it, and plant and build up a nation for ourselves.
He does have the eloquence, doesn’t he? I’ve told him some day I’ll have to come hear him preach. (That’s the American way of talking – preaching, etc.) I think they minister in Ireland.
But he has the same message as me. This is a good time to participate and make your vote felt.
What’s “Gold Elite?” Gold Elite is apparently the ultimate best educational package offered by Trump University. It ran for three days and cost $34,995, and during that time, “you will learn everything to make a million dollars…”
In a legitimate good faith bargain, value is exchanged for value, for instance, labor is exchanged for money: a lawn mowed for twenty-five dollars. In a scam, the appearance of a good faith bargain is created but the no real value is exchanged.
I would have liked to have looked at these transactions and concluded that it was a matter of opinion as to whether or not this was just a way to separate people from their money. But can an objective observor conclude that this was something beside a scam?
In documents released yesterday in a court order from federal judge Gonzalo Curiel, internal Trump University “playbooks” revealed how salespeople were encouraged to sign up prospective students to Gold Elite three-day packages for $34,995 each. In a message from Trump, those who signed up were told: “Only doers get rich. I know that in these three packed days, you will learn everything to make a million dollars within the next 12 months.”
Potential students were subject to high-pressure sales pitches where they were told “Your plan is BROKEN and WE WILL help you fix it” and encouraged to put the cost of Trump courses on their personal credit cards.
But — you’ve gotta spend money to make money. And so, according to Schnackenberg, “Trump University speakers told students to raise their credit card limits so that they could be ready to purchase real estate.” Then, speakers pressured those students to use their new sky-high credit to purchase more classes at the institution, like the $35,000 “Elite” program. For such a hefty price, participants could learn about real-estate … from diamond salesmen! That’s right — Schnackenberg said a jewelry maker with no real estate business experience led some Trump seminars.
Schnackenberg said that “not a single customer who paid for a Trump University seminar programs [sic] went on to successfully invest in real estate based upon the techniques that they were taught.” Gosh, that tends to happen when you are using a diamond weight estimator card to figure out a condo’s value.
I think a reasonable person looking at the court documents would conclude that Trump University was not a legitimate educational institution and that this was simply a scheme to make money.
James Pilant
P.S. You can read some of the documents here and decided for yourself:
Below is a selection from my friend, Jason Michael McCann’s, blog, Random Public Journal’s, latest offering, Westminster’s Power is Unjustified.
Power in the state is justified only by the state’s ability to protect the people over which it asserts that power. British rule over the whole of the United Kingdom has been self-serving to the point of criminal inequality. Its power is no longer justified.
If you want power over me then you had better be ready to prove to me that you deserve that power. The sole justification of the state’s power over the lives of people is its ability to provide for the freedom, security, and the welfare of those people. Britain is currently ranked as the twenty-third wealthiest nation in the world, and yet, staggeringly, it is the six most unequal in the developed world in terms of income. After four decades of unchecked Thatcherite neoliberalism, with money being sucked up to the top of the economy, no less than twenty percent of the population are trapped below the poverty line. Income inequality in Britain is greater today than it was when Charles Dicken wrote Hard Times.
I believe that income inequality here in the United States as well as in Great Britain and Ireland have a moral component. There is something unseeemly in the economic benefits of a society flowing to a handful of its members while much of the population loses ground and becomes more insecure.
If you watch the actors in 1960’s television programs like Gunsmoke, you’ll often seen the stuntmen playing small parts as members of crowds, parties, jurors, etc. In the episodes where there were no stunts to be performed it was customary to make sure they still had some income. And it wasn’t just in Hollywood that this kind of kindness was practiced, there was an expectation that there would be human decency in all walks of life.
But somehow, somewhere, the accountants took over and the world of business began to focus not on human beings, making a product, or even some modicum of service to the nation, but on pure profit. And that profit is realized more and more by turning away from investment and from making products to stock manipulation chiefly by stock buy backs – companies buying their own stock instead of looking toward the future or anywhere else.
Human decency, compassion, and kindness are outmoded models of conduct in the modern business world. In fact, they are often considered gateway “drugs” to the theft of monies from the shareholders. Pensions, disaster relief, scholarships, etc; are all stealing from the worthy investor and giving to the undeserving fellow citizens like our children.
Morality and citizenship are key factors in the success of modern civilizations. What can become of us in a land where greed is the only rationale for every action? We’ll get what’s happening now, a loss of faith in our basic institutions, the perception that every politician, every pundit, every newspaper, every television station are bought and paid for, and that playing by the rules is a game for suckers.
We are seeing the breakdown of this society and quite possibly the end of our civilization.
Paul Krugman was the first web site I read every morning for years. I didn’t read the column so much as his blog which seemed more personal and in depth.
Many, many times, his clever observations on economics delighted me.
All went well for many years, he wrote – I appreciated. But then Bernie Sanders ran for President.
It seemed to me like just another Democratic primary. I’m for Sanders but to Krugman, it appeared as if a horned helmeted barbarian was stomping in his yard, and he took to his column and blog in outrage.
At first, I thought this was a phase that would pass. Somebody would take him aside and say, “Hey Paul, try not to get too excited about this guy, remember there are a lot of people who side with your economic view who are also supporters of his.” But apparently no one did and the columns became more and more – well, just weird. Try this one – My Unicorn Problem or this one, Sanders Over the Edge. I would have appreciated a little neutrality in the race particularly considering that Hilary Clinton and her former President spouse seem to have precious little use for him or his economic views.
I can’t see being a Democrat and being a Clinton supporter as having to be the same thing. I think I can be a more progressive Democrat and back another candidate for the nomination.
So, bye Paul! Enjoyed the columns.
James Pilant
In case, you think I’m alone in my estimates of the Krugman columns – read below-
CBS television network announced this week that it was cancelling plans for a Nancy Drew television series — but the reason has left some viewers scratching their heads.
Deadline reported over the weekend that CBS executives had spent additional time reviewing the pilot before making a final decision about the police show Drew, which was being shopped by Grey’s Anatomy producers Joan Rater and Tony Phelan
According to Deadline, “the pilot tested well but skewed too female for CBS’ schedule.”
The implication would appear to be that they don’t want shows that appeal to that demographic, apparently content with what they have now. But I’m still not sure I get it. It’s not quite like a male demographic of 20 – 40 year olds who might number as much as 15 percent of the populations; it’s female and they are 51% of the total population. That’s an enormous demographic.
Too Female?
Are they saying that they are unable to manage a show that is skewed toward a female demographic? Are they uncomfortable with a female show? You know, icky emotions, different body shapes, maybe even feminist plot lines?
From a business ethics perspective, one would think that a television network would set out to serve a wide and varied population. With this purpose in mind, when a show “tested well,” we would assume that it would be acceptable in terms of public appeal and advertising revenue.
But not this time because it “skewed too female.” That a bad thing? (I’m sorry. I’m still confused.) An enormous population of viewers likes the show – so let’s kill it dead?
Here’s what I think –
Males run networks. They are uncomfortable with women and with hard thinking. A program that women like raises issues that males may find difficult and troublesome. It is better to avoid cognitive dissonance even though money would be made with the show. There are plenty of male centered stuff or at least enough that network executives don’t have to rely on the talents and preferences of women.
(This is a guest post by my friend, Steven Mintz, The Ethics Sage.)
The Ethics Sage
Ted Cruz’s fellow senators believe he is selfish. They believe he is out for his own good and that he has had aspirations to be President of the United States since his election to the Senate from Texas just four years ago. Last week we witnessed that selfishness when Cruz dropped out of the Republican primary.
Just six days prior he brought Carly Fiorina aboard to be his choice for vice president. He threw Fiorina under the bus. A very competent and spiritual woman, Fiorina gave it her heart and soul albeit for less than a week. Cruz used Fiorina only as long as it benefited him. The decision to drop out six days later smacks of thoughtless behavior. Ted Cruz is the ultimate egoist who acts in his own self-interest.
Just one week before the Indiana primary, Ted Cruz and John Kasich drew up a pact that Kasich would not actively politic in Indiana while Cruz agreed to not do the same in states such as Oregon and New Mexico. Once Cruz dropped out, Kasich had no other choice but to drop out. He also forfeited the opportunity to compete in Indiana. Cruz used Kasich as long as he needed to and then threw him under the bus.
What about his donors who gave about $80 million to the campaign? Didn’t they deserve better? Didn’t they deserve more loyalty to the cause. Didn’t they expect Cruz to be a man of integrity when they agreed to support him? Whatever happened to the pledge to stay in the race until Cleveland and win a floor battle after Trump failed to garner enough delegates on the first ballot?
The irony is that Cruz ran as a principled conservative and violated many ethical principles along the way including honesty, integrity, and responsibility. He abandoned many supporters when he decided it was no longer in his interests to pursue the Presidency. No rational person could say he did it for the good of the party, a noble motivation.
Cruz’s behavior illustrates a common problem in workplace ethics. Egoistic leaders attract supporters to the cause because they promise so much but in the end many fail to deliver. In other words, they are not true leaders and their followers abandon ship or are thrown overboard.
Political ethics may be an oxymoron today but that wasn’t always the case. It used to be a high calling to serve the people and place their interests above all else. Cruz’s decisions and actions illustrate the decline in political morality just as there has been a decline in morality in society.
I searched for a parallel from history to characterize Cruz’s actions. I found one in Machiavellianism. It is the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct. The word comes from the Italian Renaissance diplomat and writer Niccolò Machiavelli, who wrote The Prince, among other works.
His cunning in politics is well known. On September 24, 2013, Ted Cruz finally released his grip on the Senate floor after more than 21 hours of speaking about the need to defund Obamacare. The Texas Republican had seized control of the Senate floor vowing to “speak in support of defunding Obamacare until I am no longer able to stand.” This was the self-interest motivated act that created dislike for Cruz for many Republican senators and why so few supported his candidacy.
In modern psychology, Machiavellianism is one of the dark triad personalities, characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality and a focus on self-interest and personal gain. As far as Cruz is concerned these traits fit his personal style to a “t.” Perhaps the dark triad is too strong but it may explain why he isn’t a likeable sort. The self-interest and personal gain characteristics are a perfect fit.
Our politicians have let us down so often in the past perhaps we should not be surprised by Cruz. The way he abruptly dropped without considering the consequences of his actions on others – many who had deeply believed he was a principled conservative – speaks volumes about the character of the man and just how far politicians have slide down the proverbial ethical slippery slope with no hope of climbing back up and regaining the high road.
My Year End Assignment
Today was one of my last classes before I move away from Arkansas, I was showing a film, My Life in Ruins, a Nia Vardalos film, probably, the greatest business ethics film of all time. As I tell my students, it literally rains business ethics problems as it tells the story of a disillusioned American tour guide in Greece beset by a scheming competitors, bizarre tourists and Greek inefficiency.
I couldn’t stop thinking that I would never get to share the film again, that the laughs and smiles at the jokes would be the last I would ever get out of the film. As of tonight I am still recovering. I’m afraid that I’ve found a film that illustrates a host of business ethics issues and that maybe no one will ever see it as I do and use it again.
Here is the trailer from You Tube –
MY LIFE IN RUINS – Official Trailer – YouTube
The assignment is in the following form. Each students writes down the ethical problems as they appear and identifies the problem as business or not. If it is a business ethics problems, the student tells me what should have been done instead. Today, in the first hour, one of my students identified more than fifty business ethics problems. Of course, she’s an over achiever, but even the most average of students can usually spot twelve. I’ve seen hundreds of films and never have I seen one where business ethics problems appear so often.
The excerpt below is from 
All went well for many years, he wrote – I appreciated. But then Bernie Sanders ran for President.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.