Psychology of Ethical Behavior
The psychology of ethical behavior is fairly basic in healthy individuals facing single-issue situations. The combination of natural and learned responses guides them. Behavior can be modified through additional learning, as well as from personal thought (including intuition) and societal pressures. (The subject of learning of ethical behavior has been discussed in detail in Chapter 3. on Brain Physiology).
The situation becomes more complicated when several issues are involved at the same time, as the interest of different parties (including oneself), or different value dimensions (for example, compassion and honor). Usually, an attempt is made to compromise. The degree of compromise is given by the relative ranking of the different issues or values in the individual’s mind at the given time. Here, natural and learned responses may be in conflict, and value-ranking may be influenced by learning or personal thought.
4.2. Focus, activism, and obsession
Some unique psychological effects occur when ethical thought or certain ethical issues have exceptional importance in an individual’s mind (possibly based on variations in brain structure, body chemistry, or learning as indicated in the previous chapter). In the milder form, self-righteousness and pride can occur in the positive, or increasing feelings of guilt or allocation of guilt in the negative. Some developments in Jewish and Christian thought point in that direction (a world divided into spheres of self-righteousness and guilt). In the extreme, self-righteousness and pride can become as dangerous as feelings of guilt or allocation of guilt to others. Entire societies can move in such directions. As in most cases of extreme focus fixation, the human mind does not admit an alternative focus and closes itself against alternative views.
As shown elsewhere, thought follows focus, supported by selective observation. If relaxation does not work, then only the introduction of a new focus, through learning or experience, can resolve the pursuit of an existing focus. In some cases, such learning or experience must be traumatic in order to have effect. In some cases, even traumatic experiences are selectively evaluated as supporting the given focus. History is replete with such examples, and new ones are occurring in our times.
Saints and “do-gooders” present another form of elevated ethical behavior. Both are well accepted when pursuing one’s own values, religion, and interests. They are seen in a more critical light, however, when pursuing foreign religions or negatively valued issues. It is typical for saints and do-gooders to actively proselytize and condemn people who are not supportive or who are critical of them.
Further increase in ethical emphasis leads to being an “activist” who sacrifices his or her own resources for a cause. The activist of one’s own conviction is a hero; the activist of opposed values is a dangerously unbalanced threat. Activists, even in suffering, often have an exhibitionist urge to advance themselves and their cause.
In the extreme, ethical pursuits approach obsession. Obsession is possibly mankind’s most devastating mental affliction, whether it takes the form of religious, political, nationalistic, or racist obsession and persecution. Often, the secondarily arising counterforces are equally obsessed and devastating. Obsession occurs when a single focus totally dominates thought to the point of no longer permitting value-balancing. Some individuals are prone to fall into obsessions. Others are obsessed as from a spasm and can return to balanced thought once the spasm has been resolved. In religious and political obsessions, only elimination of the lead figure can possibly resolve the obsessionary movement (unless a successor appears). Persecution of such movements intensifies the obsession (but acceptance does not resolve it). A follower of an obsession may lose the obsession after lengthy separation, relaxation, and exposure to an alternative mental focus.
4.3. Natural behavior, historic development, and retarding aspects in ethics
As indicated in Chapter 2, Evolutionary Biology, the psychology of ethics is roughly associated with the three natural categories of:
As pointed out elsewhere (Chapter 3. Brain Physiology), associative learning or personal thought can bring an individual to accept a newly introduced individual as being next of kin with consequent caring for that individual. Christian teaching attempts to do this. The historical growth of societal structures has accomplished, or was facilitated by, this (from family units to towns, nations, and continents as in Europe). If reciprocity is lacking, however, this caring may disappear. If advantage is taken of the situation, caring may revert into hostility. This is an important consideration in America’s struggle for ethnic harmony.
It is only “natural” that people care for their families first and their own ethnic groups next (whether Catholic Irish, Afro-American, Jewish, Chinese, or whatever). They may be praised as heroes by their own groups for such caring. This relates back to historical times when social structure was on a smaller scale and groups where set against each other. It is not sufficient in our times, not ethically “good” enough, because it is retarding the development of a harmonious larger society, whether in the United States or on a global level. In this development, it may be counterproductive if certain ethnic groups seek or achieve advantages for themselves (or their home countries) at the expense of others. However, striving for individual equal opportunity, fairness, and, where indicated, help to the weak, is certainly ethically indicated. Ethical advances by one group toward the other have to be reciprocated reliably. Domination and exploitation of other groups has to be avoided by all those groups that want to be part of that harmony. There must be more thinking and learning.
Something should be said about the behavior of individuals as members of organizations. Industrial organizations and practical-interest groups are not, in the human sense, “ethical.” They exist to maximize benefit for participants. Competition ascertains that no resources are squandered on anything else. Employees who do not perform must be fired. Consequently, individuals play the roles they perceive as being expected of them. Even humanly “warm” individuals will attempt to play a “tough” role in a business context. This may be a far different role from the one they play when not working for the organization. Even an otherwise “ethical” president and CEO is severely restrained in what he can have his organization do in ethical terms. Only the law (and threat of punishment or loss of image) or perceived benefits from public relations can ascertain desired ethical responses by people identifying themselves with organizations. The recent testimony of tobacco executives as to the non-addictiveness of nicotine is a sad example. Only a few individuals have a sufficiently sovereign personality and enough self-assurance to carry their own ethical convictions into their business world beyond organizational pressures. However, there are both older and newer American and European corporations that devote a surprising amount of attention to human concerns. This often perpetuates an owner’s or founder’s philosophy.