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.
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:
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 media fails us constantly and that wouldn’t be so bad if it had always been the case.
There was a CBS documentary on Vietnam called Vietnam: the Thousand Day War. (You can watch it here.) I lived during the Vietnam War although I was too young for the draft but a few years ago I decided to revisit that era and watched the documentary. I challenge you to watch it as well. For portrayed in that documentary is an aggressive, intelligent and courageous set of news people on an important mission acting with deep ethical concerns.
What is even more amazing is the politicians from the period who don’t seem to mind tough pointed questions and newsmen doing their jobs.
But today with the corporatization of the media, we have just another entertainment division focused on profits shorn of any duty to God or man. From a public duty enforced by law, the Reagan Administration freed the network from any restraint, and not we live in a world of news which makes the movie, “Network,” appear as a prophesy.
What new reason do I have today for the media’s consistent failure to act as professional journalists?
Narrative and aesthetics.
Here, let another author phrase it beautifully for me:
Apparently, if the story can be summarized simply emphasizing good guys versus bad guys, it can’t be sold.
No matter how important the story, no matter how central to whether or not democracy can function, if it isn’t in such a simple pathetic format, it won’t sell and since it can’t be marketed, it will not appear.
We need Edward R. Murrow and a return to journalism integrity. Can it happen? The wheel of destiny is in motion and it has turned in the Neoliberal pursuit of profit to such an extent the Les Moonves says of the current political campaign this: “Man, this is pretty amazing. Who would have thought this circus would come to town? It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. [Laughs] The money’s rolling in …. This is fun.”
“… may not be very good for America,” He says it but he doesn’t seem to care and I don’t think he does. If he doesn’t care than as far as he is concerned, the United States and its citizens can go straight to hell as long as CBS makes a profit. Aristotle did not quite mean this when he spoke of citizens of the world. He did not mean those who had divorced themselves from the concerns of their fellow citizens.
Media journalism should be “good for America.” And we need a return to the moral high ground and an understanding of the corrosive effect of money in journalism.
When you think of a pundit, people like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, etc., come to mind. Of course, there are other figures in other parts of the political spectrum that might be mentioned. I would suppose Bill Nye might be considered a pundit and Rachel Maddow would certainly fall into that category.
Pundit Admits Mistake!
And pundits have been wrong, sometimes, a little, sometimes, a lot. However, just as the chief protagonist in Love Story says, “Love means never having to say you’re sorry,” there is a similar rule in the world of punditry that indicates a mistake should be quickly forgotten and ignored.
Jordan Weissmannwriting in Slate magazine is defying the conventional wisdom and admitting that a previous column was a mistake.
This was wrong. And in the interest of pundit transparency, I wanted to take an opportunity to admit as much.
And then later in the essay:
So, again, I was wrong. And the reason why is fairly straightforward: Like a lot of writers, I never expected Sanders to attract the kind of support he has. I expected him and Clinton to debate. I didn’t expect them to debate for the soul of the party. But they have.
So, he doesn’t admit he was wrong, he admits he was wrongtwice. That’s incredible and even better business ethics than before when I thought he was admitting he was wrong once.
Now, you should read his whole essay. It is well worth it. And reflect that all pundits tend to be full of pride but at least one has a genuine touch of humility.
(Satire) A MESSAGE FROM THE AIRLINES TO ALL OF YOU
We’re the airlines.
There aren’t many of us.
That gives us monopoly power.
Let us make this clear to you.
We make the rules and you pay us money.
Don’t be crying to your congressmen.
We own them.
You want leg room.
Pay us more money.
That’s the rules.
You don’t live in a free market.
If you did, we would compete and there would be leg room.
You don’t live in a democracy.
If you did Congress would stop us from denying you leg room.
So be obedient,
and give us the money.
And, in case, you forgot, we are the makers, the creators of value in this country and you are the takers.
Stop whining.
I firmly believe that is how our “benefactors,” in this case, the airlines feel about how things work in this country. Yes, I’m shrill and mean. But Americans have to sit in cramped seats for hours because the airlines exert monopoly power and they own our gerrymandered representatives the way farmers used to own cows and chickens.
Millions of Americans ride the airlines and because of how this system is constructed, their voices are of no importance.
And let me remind you, that because of the miraculous powers of the invisible hand and the free market, none of these leg room problems are happening or can happen. The market should have provided leg room for all at good prices because of the wonders of competition.
Neoliberal economics is simply a fantasy for the well to do.
Are Shifting Cultural Values Creating an Entitlement Society?
(This is a guest column by Steven Mintz, the Ethics Sage. I am proud to have one of his columns appear on my site. I strongly recommend you visit his site (listed below), favorite it and visit regularly. jp)
We often hear that an entitlement society has developed in the U.S. over a number of years. In a casual sense, the term “entitlement” refers to a notion or belief that one is deserving of some particular reward or benefit—if given without deeper legal or principled cause, the term is often given with pejorative connotation (e.g. a “sense of entitlement”).
Philosophically, entitlement theory comes from the Theory of Justice. John Rawls argued that the state should have whatever powers are necessary to ensure that those citizens who are least well-off are as well-off as they can be (though these powers must be consistent with a variety of basic rights and freedoms). This viewpoint is derived from Rawls’s theory, one principle of which is that an unequal distribution of wealth and income is acceptable only if those at the bottom are better off than they would be under any other distribution. Hence we have the viewpoint to tax the rich and transfer resources to the least well off amongst us. This view of Justice Theory would justify the reallocation of resources in society.
The issue I deal with here is what is behind the entitlement mentality. I am not saying some people do not want to work and feel entitled to benefits from the government out of a sense of justice. Rather, I believe the entitlement notion stems from a shift in cultural values brought on, in part, by what we see on television and in social media. People with wealth flaunt it. TV shows glorify it. Social media exacerbates the feeling of jealousy for those without it. It’s in our face all the time from the housewives of wherever to the grossly over-the-top CNBC program The Secrets of the Super Rich.
What is the average person expected to think when they see such a television program that glorifies over-the-top wealth? Last Wednesday one segment featured a $200 million-plus ridiculously lavish yacht. The reality is that if that amount was split between 5,000 people it could clothe, house and feed them at the rate of $40,000 per year.
The entitlement mentality also comes from the way in which many Millennials were brought up and given just about anything and everything they wanted. Moreover, today we are debating whether children should be rewarded not for winning a competition but for just competing, even if they come in last. They are entitled to be recognized for their effort. But, is that how the real world works? Do you think in China and other Asian countries youngsters are rewarded for finishing behind the pack or last? I doubt it.
The Ethics Sage
Students on college campuses feel entitled to voice their views in a way that shuts other voices down. The administration of many such colleges give in for fear of alienating one person or one group without thinking about the rights of others.
So, the key becomes how to define “entitlement.” In this regard we can turn to the theory of “moral rights.” Rights theory provides that human beings have certain fundamental rights that should be respected in all decisions: the right to free consent, privacy, freedom of conscience, free speech, and due process. A right is a capacity, a possession, or condition of existence that entitles either an individual or a group to enjoy some object or state of being. For example, the right to free speech is a condition of existence that entitles one to express one’s thoughts as one chooses.
The moral force of a right depends on its strength in relation to other moral considerations applicable to the context in question. According to rights theory, as long as the distribution of wealth in society is achieved through fair acquisition and exchange, the distribution is a just one regardless of any degree of inequalities that may ensue. The morally correct action is the one that a person has the moral right to do, that does not infringe on the moral rights of others, and that furthers the moral rights of others.
So, in my view entitlement is linked to having a fair and equitable opportunity to reach one’s God-given potential within the free exercise of one’s will. The goal is best achieved through persistence and practice. As the ancient Greeks knew, we develop good habits and ultimately success by applying them in a variety of situations.
Especially in a capitalist society, people must be free to develop their God-given talents without interference from the government. All well and good but does this occur by giving those who may not have earned it a reward or other form of recognition? No, but it does, in fact, occur because of our social-media conscious society which reflects a shift in cultural values.
All too many act in a way to achieve their fifteen minutes of fame whether it is a You Tube posting or other form of social media exhibitionism. We want what we want and no one should get in our way less they violate our rights. Unfortunately, the pursuit of wealth and fame take over and shove hard work and responsibility into the background. This is a narcissistic approach to life and one that leads to the entitlement mentality. I believe it is dangerous and threatens the values we have long aspired to such as to act with integrity and develop a strong work ethic.
Dr. Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage. Professor Mintz is on the faculty of the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. He blogs at: http://www.ethicssage.com.
We need Edward R. Murrow and a return to journalism integrity. Can it happen? The wheel of destiny is in motion and it has turned in the Neoliberal pursuit of profit to such an extent the Les Moonves says of the current political campaign this: “Man, this is pretty amazing. Who would have thought this circus would come to town? It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS. [Laughs] The money’s rolling in …. This is fun.”
There aren’t many of us.
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.