Ethics: Two Wrongs but No Right

When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, America was divided between pro-life advocates and those fighting for women's rights. The podcast explores the ethical principles of Socrates, Kant, and John Stuart Mill, and how they apply to moral decision-making. The interview with Dr. David Welsh focuses on ethical behavior in the business world, specifically how goals can lead to moral disengagement and the importance of focusing on the process rather than just the outcome. It suggests that organizations should create a culture that values ethical behavior to prevent unethical actions. I don't know what's going on and neither do you, maybe we can talk about it and pretend like we actually do. Hey! Existing Existentially, a podcast of philosophies, by Joey Degnan. When Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, America went crazy. Everyone had something to say about it, as the sound of the Supreme Court changing its mind reverberated throughout the nation. But, like any decision ultimately based in opinion, who decides what's right? On one side, pro-life advocates believe they're doing the work of morality's creator, while the other fights the generational battle for women's rights. So who's right? Or is anyone? Socrates was one of the originals, dating back to 5th century BCE, and his writings are only available through the memories of his students. Those that survived, however, make up some of the standards we continue to live by. His ethical way of life consisted of three principles. 1. Happiness is achieved through doing the right thing. 2. Happiness is measured through the long-term impact it has on our soul or psyche. And 3. Human action is naturally geared towards goodness because that is the evolutionary purpose. In other words, we're naturally good beings, but we don't always act that way as a result of ignorance. Obviously, there are holes here, because there are people who do bad things on purpose. But the point remains. We are happiest when we embrace our naturally-in-kind ability to be good. Kant reinvented this idea centuries later in 1747 with the metaphysics of morals, whatever that could possibly mean. He introduced the categorical imperative that good relies on the intentions of one's action being rooted in duty, as opposed to concern about the consequence of said action, especially towards oneself. It's considered a good duty when we act in a way that we would want others to act towards us in the same situation. Sound familiar? I saw the golden rule hanging in all of my classrooms until at least the sixth grade, and for good reason. It just makes sense. John Stuart Mill took this a step forward when he coined utilitarianism in 1861, which takes one-on-one kindness to a societal level. Utilitarianism states that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. Those actions are defined by the greatest happiness principle, which says an action that produces happiness is more rewarding, and an action that takes happiness away is not rewarding. These ideas are great in theory, but we all know how complicated feelings are, and every moral decision has some emotional investment. Different actions bring different people happiness, and how do we measure which action brings more happiness? The greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people might seem impossible to achieve, especially since good means something different to everyone. I interviewed Dr. David Welsh about how ethical behavior looks in the business world. He teaches with the Department of Management and Entrepreneurship at ASU, but before that, he earned his JD from the University of Utah. Needless to say, David has seen his fair share of good and bad behavior and continues to educate us on spotting the difference. So how do you see ethics in the business sphere? Yeah, so within the business world, there's always something going on to talk about. We have no shortage of ethical scandals, and when I teach MBA students or others here at UP Cary, they see these sorts of things in the world of work, and these sort of ethical issues come up. And sometimes the issues are kind of black and white, but oftentimes they're more complicated, and it's those more complicated issues of how do you balance performance and ethics and standards and navigating your career path on the right trajectory to reach the outcomes that you want, but in an ethical way, in the way that you want to achieve them. You know, this is something that I think everybody wrestles with, and oftentimes you see students come in and they think, I don't need an ethics class. I'm already a good person. You know, maybe my peers, they need an ethics class, or, you know, maybe this is going to be boring. Maybe it's going to be like Sunday school, and the professor's just going to tell me, oh, you should do the right thing. Okay, you know, we're done. But, you know, fortunately, there's actually a lot of really interesting research that can inform this, and, you know, why even though we have good intentions a lot of the time, we want to do the right thing, yet we know we're not perfect. Like our values do not always match with our behaviors. Sometimes we fall short. It's like, why does that happen? You know, what are our ethical blind spots? You know, what are the situations where, you know, if we look at it with hindsight or if we think about it a little bit more, it's like, oh, you know, I could have done something different there. I could have done a little better. Exactly, exactly. From your experience, what are some of the, like, what are some general examples of where people think they're doing the right thing, but it's actually harming someone else? So how would I see that in, like, the company that I work for? Yeah, so there's probably a lot of potential examples, but one that is of interest to me and that I studied a little bit relates to performance and performance goals. Yeah. So, yeah, so, you know, of course at work on a given day we're thinking, like, hey, how can I deliver on the tasks that are given to me? Like, how can I be successful at my job? And oftentimes we're not even thinking about ethics, right? Like, unless something comes up, you know, it's like, oh, this is an ethical issue. We're just thinking about, you know, what are the goals that I have? What are these objectives? And so, you know, goals can be really powerful. Like we said, goals, if they're specific, if they're difficult, if they challenge us, they can motivate us to perform better. But like a lot of good things, there can be unintended consequences. And so, like, that's something that I've studied. So I've looked at, you know, how goals can lead to moral disengagement, by which I mean like rationalizations and justifications that you might come up with to hit your organizational goals. Like, hey, it's no big deal if I take this shortcut. Or like, oh, like my boss really wants this, you know. It's my boss's fault if I do this. You know, they're the one who told me to, you know, achieve this performance objective in this particular way. Goals can also put the blinders on us. You know, we have less moral awareness. We're focused on performance. We're not thinking about ethics. We're just thinking about, you know, accomplishing the task. And so sometimes we don't notice those issues. They can wear us down a little bit as well. You know, goals are highly motivating, but you put in all that energy, you can get worn down. Sometimes you're not at your best. You're just slogging through. You're like, maybe you see this, you know, with like university papers at the end of the semester. It's crunch time, right? You're like, man, I have this goal to get this paper done, but I'm just like so slammed by it. Like you're worn down. So these would just be some examples of how something potentially good like a performance goal can also maybe blind us to the ethical challenges associated with pursuing that goal. So on the one hand, I want to make us aware of some of those pitfalls, and then I've also done some stuff in terms of how can you use goals more effectively? How can you get that motivation without also the ethical downsides potentially? Yeah, absolutely. And how, like, can you give me some examples of how we can? Yeah, yeah, for sure. So one example that comes to mind, we did a paper with some Ph.D., or former Ph.D. students of mine and I, where we basically looked at two different types of goals, and one of these types was really just focused on the outcome. Like, what is the goal at the end of the line? Like, bottom line performance, achieve this, right? And the other type of goal, it was the same end result, but we focused on the process of the goal. Like, learning development, like, what is this goal actually like, encouraging you to do, like, the process along the way? Exactly, yeah. So we did a number of studies with both employees and with, you know, students that we assigned goals to, and we gave them the same goal but in different ways. If you focus just on the outcome instead of focusing on, like, here's the process behind the goal, here's, like, what you're actually trying to learn or develop, you know, those have vastly different outcomes in terms of people being motivated to behave unethically. Interesting. If it's just all about the outcome, you can take a shortcut, you can cheat, you can get that outcome. Yeah. But if it's about the process and you actually buy into that, then, like, cheating doesn't really help you develop in that sort of way. So some of it just has to do... This is certainly not the only solution or the only way to use goals effectively, but what it does tell us is, like, you know, if you're in an organization and you're just a manager giving employees this goal and you're like, hey, just bring me these numbers, just get me these results, I don't care how you do it, or, like, I'm not going to be involved in the process or in your development, you know, then it's easy for these employees to think, you know, maybe I'll take some shortcuts to get there. But if the process is important, then maybe goals don't necessarily have these same sort of side effects. Like, cheating doesn't get you what you want there. Yeah, exactly. So what makes a process important? Is it the people you're working with? Is it the, you know, the many goals you have along the way? How do you define that? Yeah, so there's certainly a lot of things in the environment itself. Like, we call that, like, an organizational culture or climate. Like, the people around you, the boss setting the standards. Like, what are people around you doing? You know, do they care about ethics, like, as well? But here in this particular context, we're kind of focusing, I think, at the outcome versus the learning goal is getting at the underlying motivation for the goal. And, you know, if we want to get into sort of some of the technical terms here, one is like an extrinsic motivation, right? It's like the carrot, like, it's external. And the other is more sort of intrinsic. Like, we all have these intrinsic goals that we want to improve ourselves and develop and learn new skills and be better at our job and all that. But that's a little bit different than saying, I want that raise or that promotion or that pat on the back, which is more extrinsic. So, you know, both can be valuable, but if you focus too much on the extrinsic motivators and you forget about the sort of intrinsic motivation there, then people can get sidetracked and they can just be thinking about those short-term rewards rather than, like, what the goal is actually trying to accomplish. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Wow. On a more broader term, when we're talking about morality in general, from your perspective, do you think that morality is universal? Yeah, so that's a great question, and it's a great question because it doesn't have an easy answer. Exactly. Lots of people talk about this, psychologists, you know, moral psychologists talk about this. So, I think I have maybe two things to say about this. One is that there's some really interesting research, moral foundations theory and the work of Jesse Graham and Jonathan Haidt. They survey people across different cultures all around the world in the West, in the East, in all different parts of the world, and what they find is that people have some of the same underlying what we call moral foundations, but this can differ within each society based on where people fall on the political spectrum within that society. So, for example, what we tend to find across a wide variety of cultures is that all people, or you could say it's kind of universal, that people tend to care about things related to harm to others. Like, harm is something that's like a core value that almost everybody has. Yeah. And the same thing with fairness or ideas of justice. Now, that might differ in terms of what justice or fairness looks like, but these are sort of core foundations that everybody shares to a certain extent. Yeah. But we also have some other moral foundations that people tend to disagree on, and so you have things like loyalty to the group, you know, loyalty or conformity to authority, and like notions of purity or sanctity. So, some people will say like, oh yeah, like loyalty, maybe to my country, like that's super important, or loyalty to your family, like if I have an opportunity to lie, but it would help somebody that I'm close to, maybe I feel that pull of loyalty, like that's important. Or maybe I feel like, you know, authority really is important within a culture, and people should respect their elders, and they should respect tradition, we shouldn't just try to tear things down. Or this idea of purity or sanctity, you know, that like your body is a temple, you live your lifestyle in a certain way, like some people that's a very core value for them, and other people are like, no, no, no, like that just seems like something that's outdated. And so, what you have is people that tend to be on the left or the more liberal side of their society in every culture, they tend to really focus on those harm and fairness foundations, like for them that is really the core of morality, and people that tend to be on the more conservative side, they also care about the harm and fairness, maybe to a slightly lesser extent, but they also really value these other things like loyalty or like authority or like purity. And so people can talk past each other, you could have somebody that's maybe more liberal say, like, like authority, like, why would I care what some authority figure thinks? Like, maybe we need to challenge authority or, you know, overturn power structures or hierarchies or something like that. And then other people are saying, like, you have no national pride, or you're not loyal to your group, your country, you know, what about loyalty to your own family? So there can be these competing values that don't always universalize in that same sort of sense. Yeah, it's so interesting how the specific, you know, types of morality kind of correlate with different sides of the aisle, political aisle. I never really thought about it from that perspective, so that is really interesting. And hopefully recognizing it can allow us to talk to people that see the world differently from us. Like, for example, like something like this idea of sanctity or purity, maybe that resonates with you, or maybe it doesn't. But like, if you're talking to somebody that like, you know, they feel a certain way, like maybe they have ideas about getting a tattoo, or like eating or drinking like some particular thing, like for that, for them, that's like a moral issue. And maybe for other people, that's just like a matter of preference, like do whatever you want, you know, don't, you know, whatever. So just, I think, understanding these sort of different perspectives, like, you know, realize, you know, maybe that isn't my own moral code or my own values, but I can appreciate like a lot of people in a lot of cultures, like really care about these things, that is part of morality for them. David's experience in the business world shows the dangerous intersection of ambition and morality, especially when it comes to balancing the good to the world with the good of your own company or community. To further understand the idea of good and bad, I interviewed my friend Riley, who is currently interning with a private attorney in Phoenix. She's studying global health at ASU and plans on taking her LSAT this year. So make sure to send good thoughts her way after the interview. I think the biggest reason I prefer criminal defense is just because it feels like the best way to help people. As a part of my job right now, we do a lot of mitigation for, like, deviation requests and things like that. And so I learn a lot about the life stories of these people that are facing these charges and these sentences, and all of them have incredibly traumatic backgrounds. Just life events that I would never wish for anyone to experience. So it's really made me believe in a more rehabilitation-focused justice system than anything else, because no one is born to be a criminal. No one is born wanting to do these horrible things. We're all products of our environments and what we've grown up with. Someone that has a prior felony conviction and was just in a situation that they shouldn't be in, but because they have that prior felony conviction, they're not probation-eligible and their sentencing is a little bit more severe, and so we see people that just cannot escape the prison system when they should be given that chance to. When, like, if they were given that chance to, they would become a better person. There are certain crimes that I do really struggle with, particularly sex crimes. I think that is the hardest to cope with morally. Well, especially as a woman. Exactly, as a woman. I just, knowing that someone has done those things to someone, as a woman, I don't know personally that I could defend it. I talk to my boss a lot about it. His name is Chris Doran. He's a criminal defender. He has been his entire career, and he's a really, truly great person. He's very in it for the morality of it. He's in the line of criminal defense because he wants the justice system to be just. And I've talked to him at length about why he takes sex crimes and why he defends people that are being charged with sex crimes, and for him, it's not about getting them acquitted or about getting people to drop charges, but it's about finding the right sentence for their specific case. I remember the first settlement conference that I watched was for a sex crime. It was an older man that we were defending. And my boss asked for a lower sentence for him, not because he thinks the guy shouldn't be punished, but because he's towards the end of his life, and his wife was getting older, getting sicker, and there wasn't any guarantee that his wife would survive the seven-year sentence that he was facing. And I definitely understand that, but I don't know if I personally could ever defend someone that's committed a sex crime. Yes, it's subjective, but it's subjective because different stuff pulls at our heartstrings depending on what made us who we are. Exactly. It's especially tricky in something like a justice system, which is known for being black and quote-unquote black and white. You know what I mean? Yes, it is gray, but the way that it's written, and the whole idea is setting up a specific list of rules of what is and isn't good or bad. And then the idea with lawyers is you argue those rules depending on the context. That's where you guys come in. What actions deserve a longer sentence versus a shorter sentence? I can say that there are certain punishments that I think no one should ever get, like the death penalty. I am a strong advocate against the death penalty in any context. Why is that? I think because I do think that humans have the innate right to life. That's not a privilege, that's a right, and I don't think that that can be taken away. So for the government to have that power to take away your life in any context, even if that's what you deserve, even if you've committed the most heinous crime, I don't think that should be a power that the government can have because it can be abused, and it often is. In more red states where the death penalty exists, it still exists in Arizona. I believe someone was just executed less than a year ago. And in Arizona it is lethal injection as the method of execution. It becomes disproportionate. It becomes a power that is abused by people that can abuse it. And I think it's too great of a power to risk it ending up in the wrong hands. If our justice system was fully just, then maybe I would entertain the idea of capital punishment. Maybe I would say, okay, if there's a serial killer that's constantly escaping prison, that is a real threat to society that needs to be completely removed from everyone in order for people to be safe, then absolutely. But our justice system as is, is not the most just thing. Because the rules are so explicit, it's easy for them to end up harming more than helping because they're not considerate of the various perspectives and the various influences that are going on. They see rules are rules. Exactly. You follow them, and they're always right, but nothing's always right. That's not how the world works. Exactly. I've heard judges say again and again, in the eyes of the law, my hands are tied because of the law. I can't do anything to help you out. Yeah, it doesn't often leave room for gray area when there should be that room. The irony, I know. That's just, ugh, it's really hard. But then it's, I know, and that's what's hard, too, about it, is that, what's the alternative? Anarchy? Yeah. You know, like, you can't not have a justice system. You can't have general ideas. And our justice system is not all bad. I've spoken a lot about how it's not, like, the most just it can be, but I think it's a little bit impossible to fully get there. Yeah. I do think our system does a lot of good in a lot of ways, especially in states that are not Arizona. Hot topic right now. So what do you think are some ways that the justice system can improve? Well, you know, this, I definitely believe in a more rehabilitative setup, you know, focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution. Yeah. And that's hard because, like, I've heard testimony from victims of crimes, and I've seen how it can impact people and how it can impact families. And in those cases, they really want to feel that retribution. They want to feel like the person is being punished, and I think that's very human. I really understand that. When something really bad happens to you, you want something worse or something equally as bad to happen to the person that did that to you. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that feeling. Yeah. Like, I really, really get it. But I think the best thing for our society would be to focus on getting people to stop committing crimes, and the way that our prison system works is not that. In fact, it incentivizes – well, not incentivizes, but it, like, encourages and it almost ensures that people that have been in the prison system for so long will commit crimes again. It's extremely hard to get out of that cycle. Yeah. For example, I learned recently that prison fees accumulate while you're in jail, and you can't pay those off until you get out. So a lot of people leave prison with a lot of debt. Also, I learned from doing a lot of mitigation with people that have had a previous criminal record and have spent time in prison that people have gotten addicted to heroin in prison, and that's something that often happens. Wow. That's horrible. Whether it's, you know, smuggled in from the guards or from guests or whatever, but people have real access to hard drugs in prison. So that means that they're getting addicted, and then once they get out, they're still addicted. Damn. So they can be caught with these serious drugs and end up doing more time for having those drugs. And as I mentioned previously, because they're a convicted felon or, you know, they've spent time in prison, they're not probation-eligible, they're pushing for more sentencing. Like, if you look – I encourage you to look at, like, a sentencing chart. They're available online, but, like, it's laid out pretty nicely, where there's, like, depending on the class of felony you've committed or you've been convicted of, and then, like, there's, like, a mitigated sentence, a minimum sentence, the standard sentence, a maximum sentence, and then an aggravated sentence. And so there's, like, often, like, a five-year range in between the mitigated and aggravated sentence. Okay. And there are, like, two separate – there are a bunch of separate charts, but once you've committed a felony, it moves down. Or been convicted of a felony and served time for a felony, it moves down, so you're no longer probation-eligible, and the sentences are longer, a lot longer. And so people just get caught in a cycle of committing crimes, and I don't think it's their fault. So something about at least our punishment – it doesn't have to be necessarily about the way that we, like, convict people or the way that we write the law, but the way that we punish people for those convictions, I think, needs to change. Exactly. You can talk about the process as much as you want, but the outcome, you know, where the process is the justice system, the outcome, the proof is in the pudding, you know? Yeah. And that's just – I think the irony of the justice system is something that will always kind of boggle my mind because everybody knows about it and everybody talks about it. Right. I think we're so focused on getting justice for victims right now, and I think that that is, in some terms, fair, but I think there isn't enough focus on the convict. What really bothered me is the fact that people convicted of a felony can't vote. Yeah. What? I know. That is just ridiculous. Are you kidding me? Yeah. I just think that it's so strange how a system that is so driven by freedoms and by ensuring that the everyday person has a voice is so quick to take it away. You know what I mean? Yeah. Our most basic American right, right? The American right, yeah. That our country was founded on, you know, voting and owning a gun. And that's what a lot of people with priors get in trouble for is, you know, being near a gun. If they're found near a gun, even if it's not there, even if there's no proof that they used it, even if there's no proof that they could have used it feasibly, if they're found near it, that's possession. Sorry, the airstrike went off. And then they go back to jail. Awful. Airstrike. Right now there's a Democrat running for Maricopa County Attorney, Tomiko Wooten. Wooten? Wooten? W-O-O-T-E-N. But she needs signatures to get on the ballot, but she's more focused on rehabilitation than retribution. So anyone that's listening to this podcast is in favor of what I'm saying. Go sign the petition. Think about Wooten. Use your civil right, not everybody can. Yeah, clearly not everyone can. The dilemma of ethics may never be solved. It's difficult to be empathetic about any situation that you may feel is wrong. It's also easy to get caught in the gray area between advancing ourselves and considering the effects of our actions on others. Morality is no easy feat. But justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are. Ben Franklin's words, not mine. I hope you don't judge me for it. Over and out.