tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/morals-12306/articlesMorals – The Conversation2023-11-06T16:20:51Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2170102023-11-06T16:20:51Z2023-11-06T16:20:51ZRed Arrows: narcissism, immorality and lack of empathy are behind the dark psychology that can poison elites<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/557710/original/file-20231106-23-8ldlv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=130%2C93%2C6099%2C4035&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Sexism, harassment and bullying are rife in the UK's Red Arrows.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-may-6-2023-red-2300153179">Watcharisma/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/01/top-gun-sense-of-exceptionalism-fuelled-red-arrows-culture-of-sexism">Sexism, harassment and bullying</a> plague the Red Arrows, the UK Royal Air Force’s display team. This revelation was the outcome of investigations into complaints of bad behaviour in this elite organisation. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/01/raf-chief-acknowledges-unacceptable-culture-of-sexism-in-red-arrows">Air Chief Marshal Sir Rich Knighton</a> said that “behaviour that would be classed as unacceptable was widespread and normalised on the squadron”.</p>
<p>To me, the Red Arrows have always represented discipline, precision, skill, bravery and professionalism. They are the real-life Top Guns. Now, I’ll never be able to look at red, white and blue trails in the sky in quite the same way.</p>
<p>As a psychologist, I should perhaps be less shocked. Many of us suffer from a <a href="https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341_Readings/Social_Cognition/Ross_Intuitive_Psychologist_in_Adv_Experiment_Soc_Psych_vol10_p173.pdf">particular cognitive bias</a> that involves projecting the characteristics of a role onto the people who play that role. But just because the Red Arrows display discipline and professionalism doesn’t mean all individual members of the team will have those same characteristics. </p>
<h2>Lack of self-doubt</h2>
<p>Elite groups, be they military or otherwise, present with a particular set of psychological challenges. One is that they often play by different social rules to everyone else. In their entrenched macho culture, women in the Red Arrows squadron were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/01/raf-chief-acknowledges-unacceptable-culture-of-sexism-in-red-arrows">viewed as “property”</a>.</p>
<p>Elites are, by definition, <a href="https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/19286095/2017_Tough_get_tougher.pdf">highly selected</a> both in terms of skills and psychological characteristics.</p>
<p>In a military setting, such traits include mental toughness, which can also come with a certain <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1099-0984(200007/08)14:4%3C291::AID-PER377%3E3.0.CO;2-6?casa_token=vL0gyl6G5jgAAAAA:BCpSN6sXd9tq0KVupvHkMa-Kmygm6qQGfWdQLOacTSBKoAllcI9nClaatNo_XxM6bmpcMWVUIsSklg">emotional coldness</a>. This helps an individual to stay calm under pressure and to focus on the task in hand rather than on other people. Other people’s wellbeing may therefore not be a major priority in a highly competitive, survival-of-the-fittest situation.</p>
<p>Those selected have to be able to operate at the highest level. There is always jeopardy. The top, after all, can be a narrow ledge – precarious and anxiety-producing. As I’ve shown in a recent book, emotional displays and expressions of self-doubt <a href="https://www.edgehill.ac.uk/leading-psychologist-releases-new-book-doubt-a-psychological-exploration/">are likely to be highly discouraged</a> among elites.</p>
<p>Bottling up emotions <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/semi.1998.120.1-2.39/html">can be psychologically damaging</a>, though. It may reduce our ability to empathise with others. Several studies have also shown that people who have a good grasp of their emotions, noticing them and thinking critically about them, often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/job.720">make better decisions</a>. People who ignore their feelings can, counter-intuitively, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02699931.2022.2099349">end up being more driven by them</a>. </p>
<p>If we don’t realise that we have feelings of fear or self-doubt, because we are discouraged from doing so, we may act out in anger when that uncomfortable sensation hits. </p>
<h2>Narcissism</h2>
<p>Elites also know how special they are. They are told so endlessly. This will feed any inherent narcissistic tendencies. </p>
<p>There <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/5887138">may be a genetic component to narcissism</a>, but narcissism can develop within an individual over time – and within a culture. Narcissists will need to be at the centre of attention in all spheres of life – not just up there in the sky with the public gaping up at them.</p>
<p>They will require narcissistic attention, accolades and validation in other aspects of life, including their relationships. Narcissists are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092656622000253">more likely to switch partners</a> because new partners are always better at giving attention and complimenting them than existing partners.</p>
<p>It seems there was a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/01/raf-chief-acknowledges-unacceptable-culture-of-sexism-in-red-arrows">high propensity</a>” to engage in extramarital relations in the Red Arrows. This was no doubt partly down to opportunity and the undoubted glamour of the role, but perhaps also attributable to this narcissistic need.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Small red aircraft with Union Flag on its tail and blue smoke from its exhaust." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/558359/original/file-20231108-23-99hnxx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Red Arrow in flight.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scarborough-gb-jun-25-2022-raf-2358900355">Wirestock Creators/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Colonel Bernd Horn, Deputy Commander of the Canadian Special Operation Forces Command <a href="http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no4/doc/horn-eng.pdf">points out in the Canadian Military Journal</a>, elites also breed an in-group mentality that can become “<a href="https://www.southampton.ac.uk/%7Ecrsi/differentialprocessing.pdf">dangerously inwardly focused</a>”. Elites trust only those who know the score and who have passed the same rigorous selection tests that they have. </p>
<p>They therefore become harder to influence from the outside, where behaviour may be perceived more objectively. Objectivity, however, is very important in life.</p>
<h2>Moral confusion</h2>
<p>Being in an elite group grants access to resources and opportunities others may not have. This, of course, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1207/s15327752jpa8301_04?casa_token=SGZKV6H8neIAAAAA:QqCO6b4sPxSnqdnV50iJb9BzseSVswNqTVOR4eDyvIokULI9fWgdgPvGLuFSPGcP_uuDqiiY-iuc">creates a sense of entitlement</a> and privilege, which can further stoke egos of narcissistic people and affect moral decisions. </p>
<p>The belief that you deserve special treatment and are exempted from certain moral obligations can lead to a skewed perspective on right and wrong. The boundaries <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RjpoAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=privilege+rules+don%E2%80%99t+apply+perceptions+of+right+and+wrong&ots=M5o-Vi9JPo&sig=BsKSZl4o7QOCuqb-hIH0p9cxQrg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">can become blurred</a> after a while.</p>
<p>Elites are also in a position to prioritise their own interests, driven by this desire, conscious or unconscious, to maintain their status and protect their privileges. Their insularity means that they are often surrounded by like-minded people who share similar values and perspectives and encourage this.</p>
<p>These social circles <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KDshCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA81&dq=the+dangers+of+in-group+thinking&ots=ijXQNd4Rep&sig=IDEwsqwMOMfBBuCTTqS75NGrKwY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=the%20dangers%20of%20in-group%20thinking&f=false">can influence</a> their moral compass by reinforcing certain beliefs and behaviour, without the necessary critique.</p>
<p>Those of us who are not part of an elite group may also play a part. Some of us may recognise the elite’s position, power and privilege and be unwilling to sanction them because of their perceived importance (in the case of the Red Arrows as iconic representations of national identity). Knighton described this as “bystander culture”, though a better term here might have been <a href="https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/46474669/Crowded_minds_the_implicit_bystander_eff20160614-5333-9sllxi-libre.pdf?1465913078=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DCrowded_Minds_The_Implicit_Bystander_Eff.pdf&Expires=1699284094&Signature=KJGetyFgJNc3iVtbEQPNrdTW%7EBEBY8-80KQ5JPGLAjQlhRJkaYyeUY5as2aFzhVq6nFOLEDRh-idN7GmgPRyTB%7Eew2lE-ahEFM%7E4Am2Yl15dcLEWKB-d%7ENSNWlq3657EojBIAqlZvn7laOZEWE%7EgPLpxWmjZYpj7IKNfgYcbiejActR1Nw2LY9gtGBN30GZHbh2jWc1xMBP2883vpre-NCHVAtcNMNI7482Fe2exzgUC00xScvIMDmy4BNt1s%7E9zV7hUZu%7EZ59vbIc%7E%7EHvoJURZ3ZPZmw9Dy2lD%7EQVA5na5nTjq7OokvOn2T32CMaBtNtgvlP9FhC7c23PYothKB2A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA">“bystander apathy”</a> .</p>
<p>It’s important to keep in mind that these are issues that affect all elites – from politicians and people who went to top schools to social media influencers. Personalities, fed and developed by attention and accolades until they’re dependent on them, may become trapped in an echo chamber of shared values. This often comes with an immunity to criticism from those outside the group who could never understand the pressures of the elite.</p>
<p>So while elites can be very special, it’s not necessarily always in a good way. We should all do our best to call out their bad behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217010/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Elite groups often become trapped in echo chambers.Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2140912023-09-25T12:06:46Z2023-09-25T12:06:46ZKindness has persisted in a competitive world – cultural evolution can explain why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/550006/original/file-20230925-25-e96mgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=201%2C52%2C4774%2C3259&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many people return lost wallets.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-lost-his-wallet-on-bench-615012233">Dobo Kristian/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recently, I was walking with some fellow parents after nursery drop-off when we came across a five-pound note lying on the pavement. We stood around it for a moment, a bit awkwardly, until someone suggested putting it on a nearby bench. Then one of the parents remarked that we’d probably have behaved differently — that is, we would have just taken the money — had we been alone.</p>
<p>This relates to a classic question in studies of human generosity: do we behave more selfishly when we aren’t being observed? There is a lot of <a href="https://app.cooperationdatabank.org/">research</a> on this with mixed findings. The debate rages on, across the psychological and biological sciences, as well as in popular culture, about whether kindness can exist in a competitive world.</p>
<p>Yet, despite a common theme of dismissing the ethical teachings of many organised religions worldwide, one of the points of Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of repentance, is to help us learn to behave better regardless of who is watching. There’s an evolutionary beauty to the teachings of religions, which are the products of thousands of years of cultural change and refinement.</p>
<p>On Yom Kippur, many Jewish people spend much of — if not all — their day at synagogue. We fast and ask for forgiveness for the wrongs we’ve committed, and consider how we can improve ourselves. A major part of this is recognising the customs of gift-giving in Judaism, which are given the umbrella term tzedakah.</p>
<p>Tzedakah has several features that help to guide us around generosity. Strangely, however, some of these also accord with expectations from evolutionary theory, which defines altruism as something that is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207014996">possible only when we don’t receive anything back</a> — including adulation — for our charitable acts. </p>
<p>For example, there are, we’re taught, <a href="https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/45907/jewish/Eight-Levels-of-Charity.htm">levels</a> of better or worse giving. Donating publicly is a lower level, while one of the highest is giving when neither the giver nor the receiver knows the other’s identity.</p>
<p>It sounds like a trivial difference, but trying to give anyone anything anonymously is hard. (Have you tried?) We always have an impulse to tell others about our generous spirit, and fighting against that is combating our own evolutionary history, which encodes in us the desire for a <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2020.0290">good reputation</a> just as much as a desire for attaining resources that help us to survive.</p>
<p>It’s no coincidence, for example, that when the anthropologist Polly Wiessner <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/595622?prevSearch=%28wiessner%29+AND+%5Bjournal%3A+ca%5D&searchHistoryKey=">explored</a> generosity in economic games among a group of hunter-gatherers, several asked her whether their donations really were anonymous. </p>
<p>We have a drive to keep others informed about — or to hide — our actions. And a set of principles derived from religious customs, such as tzedakah, helps us, in turn, to stifle those impulses.</p>
<p>Religious and cultural practices around the world offer similar guidance, helping humans to act in ways that benefit each other, rather than themselves and their families alone. The Bible’s golden rule — often formulated as “treat others as you’d like to be treated” — is an interesting example because it has developed, independently, in <a href="https://academic.oup.com/book/31834">numerous societies around the world</a>. </p>
<p>Formulating ethical guidance around empathy helps maximise generosity across society: we’d of course want help if we were in the same situation as a homeless person.</p>
<p>This doesn’t require organised religion. Hunter-gatherer groups, which better represent the circumstances our species evolved in, have many similar examples. </p>
<p>The Maasai people of Kenya <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4937096/">practice</a> osotua: relationships between people that operate based on need. When someone forms an osotua relationship (the term translates literally into English as “umbilical cord”) with another, they enter into an unwritten contract to help their partner in times of need.</p>
<h2>Cultural evolution</h2>
<p>Cultural evolution — the spread and change of information that isn’t encoded in our genes — helps to explain the ubiquity and complexity of these systems. Cultural changes are far faster than biology, allowing intelligent species like humans to develop behavioural adaptations for managing complex social environments. </p>
<p>The study of those changes has helped us to understand how we successfully spread around the world as cooperative groups. For example, biological evolution, <a href="https://theconversation.com/early-humans-had-to-become-more-feminine-before-they-could-dominate-the-planet-42952">including a reduction in testosterone</a>, has helped humans be more cooperative, but cultural changes <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23024804/">have accelerated this process</a>.</p>
<p>Tzedakah, the golden rule, osotua, or any practice that helps to maintain good treatment of others in society, is the result of tens of thousands of years of cultural trial and error. The customs passed down over time are those that help us to thrive as cultural groups.</p>
<p>Moral philosophy has similar aims, though the major tenets of its different appearances — for example, Kant’s categorical imperative, which in part focuses on how we should accept only those rules that everyone should accept — result from the reasoned approach of one or many people.</p>
<p>Many of us are taught these views in schools and universities. But unlike the more ancient religious tenets, they aren’t often a part of our basic acculturation — though that doesn’t mean they have any less to offer us. Both moral philosophy and guidance from our religions have much to teach us about how to overcome our selfish natures.</p>
<p>Nearly 2,000 years ago, Aristotle wrote that to be ethical, we shouldn’t just follow a rule but aim to understand the purpose that rule serves. Evolutionary thinking illustrates that purpose clearly: cultural evolution helped us to conquer our selfish beginnings. </p>
<p>What’s been passed down helps each of us to live peacefully in the societies we’ve inherited. Dismissing these teachings on any biased grounds — disliking religion, for one — is likely to leave us all worse off. Try to understand rules before you ignore them — and next time you find a fiver on the ground, you might think about the ancient dilemma your discovery represents.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214091/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan R Goodman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Ancient religious customs have accelerated the evolutionary process of humans becoming more cooperative.Jonathan R Goodman, Researcher, Human Evolutionary Studies, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2007452023-02-27T15:11:03Z2023-02-27T15:11:03ZJimmy Carter: the American president whose commitment to Africa went beyond his term<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512423/original/file-20230227-633-v0xzc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Former American President Jimmy Carter. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> Drew Angerer/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The office of former US president Jimmy Carter (98), who has been frail for some time, has <a href="https://cartercenter.org/news/pr/2023/statement-on-president-carters-health.html">announced</a> that he will no longer seek hospital treatment for his ailments. He has instead opted for hospice care at his modest home in the rural farming village of <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/02/20/plains-georgia-jimmy-carter">Plains, Georgia</a>, close to where he was born.</p>
<p>His opposition to racism and his support for human rights are legendary, made more compelling by his life-long commitment to live among rural Georgians where segregation was severe and discrimination remains prevalent today. This enduring commitment to non-racialism and human rights at home also shaped his interest and engagement in Africa.</p>
<p>We discussed African affairs often during the nine years (2006-2015) when I directed the Carter Centre <a href="https://www.cartercenter.org/peace/index.html">Peace Programmes</a>. My most frequent trips to Africa for the centre were to lead election observation missions, in which he was keenly interested.</p>
<p>His views on Africa can be assessed from three angles:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Africa policies pursued during his presidency, 1977-1981</p></li>
<li><p>Programmes in Africa with the Carter Centre while he was its leader, 1982-2015 </p></li>
<li><p>His moral determination to reckon with racism.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Africa policies</h2>
<p>In her book <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Carter-Africa-International-History/dp/0804793859">Jimmy Carter in Africa: Race and the Cold War</a> Nancy Mitchell, a professor of history at North Carolina State University, analyses in 900 pages how Carter’s leadership and core values, discussed in the third section, influenced his approach to southern African. But Michell reminds us that in the 1970s Africa was the hottest theatre of the Cold War. </p>
<p>The book’s subtitle, however, highlights a significant shift of emphasis skilfully effected by Carter and key to his success in helping liberate Rhodesia (today Zimbabwe) by treating all sides, even “Communists”, with <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/opinion/from-carter-to-mtg-what-a-peach-state-plummet.html%5D(https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/25/opinion/from-carter-to-mtg-what-a-peach-state-plummet.html">respect</a>. Carter’s behind-the-scenes role in supporting the 1979 <a href="https://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/5847/5/1979_Lancaster_House_Agreement.pdf">Lancaster House agreement</a>, which led to Zimbabwean independence, was among his greatest diplomatic achievements.</p>
<p>Many years later, I was told by a close advisor to longtime Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe that, had Carter won a second term, he said he would work to raise US funds to facilitate a key element of the peace accord, land reform based on ‘willing seller, willing buyer’.</p>
<p>The election of Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980, however, resulted in a very different US policy of “<a href="https://michiganintheworld.history.lsa.umich.edu/antiapartheid/exhibits/show/exhibit/students-take-campus--1984-198/national-context--president-re">constructive engagement</a>” in southern Africa. It was widely perceived among anti-aparthed groups in the US and presumably in Africa as helping to ease the pressure of the Carter era against White minority rule. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Power-Lines-Years-Africas-Borders/dp/0792241010">Southern Africa</a> remained Carter’s top priority, as Mitchell notes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Given their druthers, the Africa specialists in the Carter administration would have devoted their full attention to resolving the problems of Rhodesia, Namibia and South Africa. (p. 253)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Carter told me several times that he spent more time pursuing peace in southern Africa than he did on the Middle East, and having read now declassifed files in the Centre library, I agree. </p>
<h2>Post-presidency</h2>
<p>Africa has claimed the lion’s share of resources and energy since President and Mrs Rosalynn Carter founded their <a href="https://cartercenter.org">centre</a> in partnership with Emory University 41 years ago, to work in poor nations, where colonialism and racism, had curtailed growth, opportunity and the sense of shared humanity. In 2015, their grandson Jason Carter, who lived in South Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer and speaks one of the country’s 11 official languages, isiZulu, was elected chair of the centre.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An elderly man and a woman attach siding to the front of a Habitat for Humanity home." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=415&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/512424/original/file-20230227-572-110fn1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=522&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Former US president Jimmy Carter and his wife Rosalynn Carter attach siding to the front of a Habitat for Humanity home in 2003 in LaGrange, Georgia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Erik S. Lesser/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Africa remains the region of the <a href="https://www.cartercenter.org/about/index.html">Carter Centre</a>’s biggest and most enduring commitments, under its motivating slogan “Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope”. According to the <a href="https://www.cartercenter.org/resources/pdfs/news/annual_reports/annual-report-21.pdf">2021 financial report</a>, the centre’s annual fundraising campaign raises about US$300 million annually. It now operates with a core staff in Atlanta of about 230 and field staff, mostly in Africa, of some 3,100. The centre also has an endowment fund in excess of US$1 billion.</p>
<p>The Carter Centre’s most significant contributions to development have been in the field of <a href="https://cartercenter.org/health/index.html">African public health</a>, to end, mitigate and prevent six diseases, among them malaria and river blindness. </p>
<p><a href="https://cartercenter.org/peace/democracy/index.html">Democracy</a> is the biggest of the peace programmes; election observation and support claim the greatest amount of resources and personnel. </p>
<h2>Carter’s moral compass</h2>
<p>Motivations for Carter’s interest in Africa are deeply personal. A brief address at a staff celebration of his <a href="https://www.cartercenter.org/news/editorials_speeches/jimmy-carter-90th-birthday-remarks.html">90th birthday</a> revealed his own reckoning with race at home. This, I believe, may have driven his long involvement in Africa.</p>
<p>Having grown up in tightly segregated rural Georgia, he recalled that his family was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>completely surrounded by African-American children, with whom I played and worked in the fields and hunted and fished in the woods. And I got to know, eventually and slowly, the difference between a privileged group and the ones around us who were not permitted to vote, or to serve on a jury, or to go to a decent school.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He added:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think this, more than anything else, has shaped my life — partially because of the guilt I still feel in not having recognised that disparity between us early on. I took it for granted that if the Supreme Court and the Congress and the American Bar Association and the universities and the churches said it was OK for white people to be superior, that was OK with God. And I think that that experience has been the most overwhelming factor in shaping my life …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Carter, as I discovered, can be a hard man to work for. He holds himself and those around him to extremely high moral and ethical standards. As president, he kept the peace, told the truth, and obeyed the law. Carter also promised never to profit from the presidency – a pledge, from my observation, that he has scrupulously honoured.</p>
<p>His record should remind all democrats, including those in Africa, to hold leaders accountable to similar standards. For as he declared during his <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2002/carter/lecture/">2002 Nobel Peace lecture</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The bond of our common humanity is stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudices. God gives us the capacity for choice.</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/200745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John J Stremlau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The motivations for Carter’s interest in Africa are deeply personal. His record should remind all democrats, including those in Africa, to hold leaders accountable to high ethical standards.John J Stremlau, Honorary Professor of International Relations, University of the WitwatersrandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1744412022-01-06T08:02:19Z2022-01-06T08:02:19ZState capture report chronicles extent of corruption in South Africa. But will action follow?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/439532/original/file-20220105-13-140qpgm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo has delivered his first report on state capture to South African president Cyril Ramaphosa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Veli Nhlapo/Sowetan/Gallo Images via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>No self-respecting theatre critic would dream of reviewing a three-Act play during the interval at the end of the first Act. But that is what one is compelled to do after South Africa’s State Capture Commission released <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/550966842/Judicial-Commission-of-Inquiry-Into-State-Capture-Report-Part-1#from_embed">Part 1</a> of its inquiry report. This is more so because those implicated by its findings will be doing all they can to undermine the credibility of its reports. </p>
<p>And in keeping with this dramatic theme, spoiler alert: My view is that deputy chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who chaired the commission, has nailed it.</p>
<p>In response, many will ask the question: has he really? And, even if he has: so what?</p>
<p>In light of the apparent weaknesses in South Africa’s state capacity and institutions, there is understandable scepticism as to whether the government has the technical capability, let alone the political will, to implement the many recommendations that are emerging from the painstaking labour of the deputy chief justice and his small band of support staff and lawyers.</p>
<p>President Cyril Ramaphosa <a href="https://www.thepresidency.gov.za/press-statements/statement-president-cyril-ramaphosa-handover-first-part-state-capture-commission-report">described receiving the report as</a> a “defining moment” in South Africa’s history. It could yet be so. But only if the work of the Commission leads to decisive action and systemic reform.</p>
<p>Without this the Zondo Commission will merely have been an exercise in catharsis – not the first steps to delivering justice and accountability.</p>
<p>The hearings themselves, and the extraordinary range of evidence that was adduced before the Commission, certainly provided catharsis, but also ‘truth’. For those with open eyes, the denuding of democratic state legitimacy was uncovered and the key protagonists – both perpetrators and victims – identified.</p>
<p>The democratic state <em>was</em> captured; key institutions <em>were</em> looted as vast sums of public money were stolen. Former president Jacob Zuma and his motley network of exploited and exploitative allies <em>were</em> responsible.</p>
<p>That much is abundantly clear from just part one of Zondo’s report. Now they must be held fully to account. Justice will need to be done.</p>
<h2>What is in it</h2>
<p>Zondo <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2018-01-09-deputy-chief-justice-raymond-zondo-to-head-state-capture-commission-of-inquiry/">was appointed</a> to chair the Commission almost four years ago in January 2018. This was after then-President Zuma had tried and failed to prevent it from being established as a part of the remedial action required by then Public Protector Thuli Madonsela in her October 2016 <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/329756252/State-of-Capture-14-October-2016#from_embed">‘State of Capture’</a> report.</p>
<p>The Commission’s first hearing was six months later. Thereafter it sat for more than 400 more days, interviewing 300 witnesses and yielding 75,000 pages of transcription.</p>
<p>In all, 1,438 individuals and institutions have been implicated, according to the introduction to the document published on <a href="https://www.gov.za/speeches/president-cyril-ramaphos-handover-first-part-state-capture-commission-report-4-jan-2022">4 January</a>. </p>
<p>Given the cost of the inquiry – and the 1.7 million pages of evidence – a further question arises: was it worth the time, effort and expense?</p>
<p>Having read through the 874 pages of this first part, a number of notable features emerge. </p>
<p>First of all, it is lucid and cogent, despite the regrettable absence of an executive summary. The public will have to wait until the publication of Part 3 of the report at the end of February to review the executive report.</p>
<p>Despite this unusual inversion, the executive report will still matter a great deal, and will require skilled wordsmithery if it is to provide the public with a clear story line. This will, in turn, help ensure that the report remains ‘alive’ in the public eye and does not get pushed into the background by other events – as has happened with similar reports in the past, such as the <a href="https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/Reports/Report%20of%20the%20Ad%20Hoc%20Committee%20of%20chapter%209.%202007.pdf">Asmal report on Chapter Nine institutions</a> as well as the <a href="https://www.sahrc.org.za/home/21/files/marikana-report-1.pdf">Farlam report on Marikana massacre</a>.</p>
<p>To allow the report to gather dust would be a huge waste of the investment in the Zondo Commission. </p>
<p>Despite the absence of an overarching narrative summary, each chapter of part one presents an intricate and fascinating account of how three public entities – South African Airways (SAA), the government’s information arm <a href="https://www.gcis.gov.za/">(GCIS)</a> and the South African Revenue Service (SARS) – were systematically ‘captured’ with criminal intent, and how misinformation, both through the diversion of public funds to a puppet-media organisation, The New Age, and the subversion of GCIS, was used to try and cover up what was going on.</p>
<p>There were notorious key ringmasters, some well known already. These include Zuma, former SAA chair Dudu Myeni and Mzwanele Manyi, Zuma’s current spokesman and the man who was helicoptered in to head GCIS after the incumbent Themba Maseko was summarily dismissed, according to the report, at the behest of the Gupta family. </p>
<p>But, now, a much wider cast of accomplices and useful idiots are exposed.</p>
<p>Private entities, such as the consulting firm Bain, where the evidence of <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2021-11-28-athol-williams-i-will-continue-whistle-blowing-and-making-the-corrupt-uncomfortable/">whistleblower Athol Williams</a> is applauded by Zondo, were also deeply complicit. </p>
<p>Secondly, it reads like a legal judgment, which is how it should be. The concern was that Zondo might fail to grasp the nettle and either shirk the most difficult issues or fudge its findings – as the Marikana massacre report did, on the core issues such as police culpability in the murder of the miners. He has not. </p>
<p>Assisted by some trusted former judicial colleagues, but under his attentive eye, Zondo has recognised the need to be both specific and precise. As a mountain of evidence was combined and the report constructed, the strategy was to provide a sound basis for prosecutions. The dots have now been joined. </p>
<p>A vast database of evidence can now be placed at the disposal of the <a href="https://www.saps.gov.za/dpci/index.php">Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation</a>, known as the Hawks, and the <a href="https://www.npa.gov.za/">National Prosecuting Authority</a>.</p>
<p>In due course, no doubt, the legal coherence and rationality of the report will be tested in court. There will be numerous judicial review applications that will seek to obscure the picture and delay justice. It may be another four years before the whole process concludes – the completion of the Commission’s work is just the start.</p>
<p>Thirdly, flowing from the findings, part one of the report offers concrete recommendations. Some recommend that certain implicated persons are either investigated or prosecuted. In other instances, the report addresses institutional failings or legal gaps.</p>
<p>So, for example, in chapter 4 of this first part – on public procurement – Zondo recommends that a new institution be created to which whistleblowers can go (a Public Procurement Anti-Corruption Agency), and, furthermore, that the new agency have authority to negotiate a financial incentive for potential whistleblowers.</p>
<p>These are very concrete recommendations. They should be taken seriously, but they are not uncontroversial, and will require further debate. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, what Zondo is doing, in addition to providing the evidential bedrock so that those responsible can be held criminally to account for their abuse of power, is setting out how the governance system needs to be strengthened. By the time part three is published at the end of February, a substantial reform agenda will have been laid out.</p>
<h2>The end game</h2>
<p>Even with two Acts of this play to go, it is reasonable to conclude that Zondo has played his part. Now it will up to the government to deliver, and for the public, civil society and the media to ensure that it does.</p>
<p>But there will be many more twists in the plot. There will be <a href="https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/johncomaroff/john-comaroff-explains-lawfare">lawfare</a>, attempts to subvert the criminal justice system, which is still recovering from state capture. The power struggle within the governing African National Congress in the run up to its five-yearly national elective conference at the end of this year will be even more bloody as a result.</p>
<p>If the late <a href="https://theconversation.com/archbishop-desmond-tutu-father-of-south-africas-rainbow-nation-97619">Archbishop Desmond Tutu</a> was the moral compass of the nation, then Zondo is constructing an ethical map. How South Africa navigates its course in the coming years will define its long-term future.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/174441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Calland is a founding partner of political risk consultancy, The Paternoster Group, and a member of the advisory council of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution. He gave evidence to the State Capture inquiry commission as an expert witness on issues relating to parliamentary oversight and the legal protection of whistleblowers, not on any matter of substantive fact or allegation. </span></em></p>The inquiry’s findings could be a defining moment for South Africa, but only if the work of the Commission leads to concrete action and systemic change.Richard Calland, Associate Professor in Public Law, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1681742021-09-26T12:18:29Z2021-09-26T12:18:29ZWe need concrete protections from artificial intelligence threatening human rights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423032/original/file-20210923-17-4z3ggm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C0%2C6979%2C2986&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A human rights-based approach is essential in regulating artificial intelligence technologies.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Events over the past few years have revealed several <a href="https://edoc.coe.int/en/internet/7589-algorithms-and-human-rights-study-on-the-human-rights-dimensions-of-automated-data-processing-techniques-and-possible-regulatory-implications.html">human rights violations</a> associated with increasing <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259344">advances in artificial intelligence (AI)</a>.</p>
<p>Algorithms created to regulate speech online <a href="https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/scholarly_works/250/">have censored speech</a> ranging from religious content to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54102575">sexual diversity</a>. AI systems created to monitor illegal activities have been used to <a href="https://forbiddenstories.org/about-the-pegasus-project/">track and target human rights defenders</a>. And algorithms have discriminated against Black people when they have been used to <a href="https://www.thecut.com/2021/06/why-doctors-struggle-to-detect-skin-cancer-in-black-people.html">detect cancers</a> or <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing">assess the flight risk of people accused of crimes</a>. The list goes on.</p>
<p>As researchers studying the intersection between AI and social justice, we’ve been examining solutions developed to tackle AI’s inequities. Our conclusion is that they leave much to be desired.</p>
<h2>Ethics and values</h2>
<p>Some companies voluntarily adopt <a href="https://hbr.org/2020/11/ethical-frameworks-for-ai-arent-enough">ethical frameworks</a> that are difficult to implement and have little concrete effect. The reason is twofold. First, ethics are founded on values, not rights, and ethical values tend to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3435011">differ across the spectrum</a>. Second, these frameworks cannot be enforced, making it difficult for people to hold corporations accountable for any violations.</p>
<p>Even frameworks that are mandatory — like Canada’s <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/government/system/digital-government/digital-government-innovations/responsible-use-ai/algorithmic-impact-assessment.html">Algorithmic Impact Assessment Tool</a> — act merely as guidelines supporting best practices. Ultimately, self-regulatory approaches do little more than <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/10125/59651">delay the development and implementation of laws to regulate AI’s uses</a>.</p>
<p>And as illustrated with the European Union’s recently proposed <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1623335154975&uri=CELEX%3A52021PC0206">AI regulation</a>, even attempts towards developing such laws have drawbacks. This bill assesses the scope of risk associated with various uses of AI and then subjects these technologies to obligations proportional to their proposed threats. </p>
<p>As non-profit digital rights organization Access Now has pointed out, however, <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/eu-regulation-ai-risk-based-approach/">this approach doesn’t go far enough in protecting human rights</a>. It permits companies to adopt AI technologies so long as their operational risks are low.</p>
<p>Just because operational risks are minimal doesn’t mean that human rights risks are non-existent. At its core, this approach is anchored in inequality. It stems from an attitude that conceives of fundamental freedoms as negotiable.</p>
<p>So the question remains: why is it that such human rights violations are permitted by law? Although many countries possess charters that protect citizens’ individual liberties, <a href="https://www.cigionline.org/articles/charter-and-human-rights-digital-age/">those rights are protected against governmental intrusions alone</a>. Companies developing AI systems aren’t obliged to respect our fundamental freedoms. This fact remains despite technology’s growing presence in ways that have fundamentally changed the nature and quality of our rights.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FuOc8-UZbxM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A side event at the 76th Session of the UN General Assembly on New Tech and Human Rights.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>AI violations</h2>
<p>Our current reality deprives us from exercising our agency to vindicate the rights infringed through our use of AI systems. As such, “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351025386-6">the access to justice dimension that human rights law serves becomes neutralised</a>”: A violation doesn’t necessarily lead to reparations for the victims nor an assurance against future violations, unless mandated by law.</p>
<p>But even laws that are anchored in human rights often lead to similar results. Consider the <a href="https://gdpr-info.eu/">European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation</a>, which allows users to control their personal data and obliges companies to respect those rights. Although an important step towards more acute data protection in cyberspace, this law hasn’t had its desired effect. The reason is twofold.</p>
<p>First, <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/10/18656519/what-are-cookies-website-tracking-gdpr-privacy">the solutions favoured</a> don’t always permit users to concretely mobilize their human rights. Second, they don’t empower users with <a href="https://news.northeastern.edu/2021/04/22/how-can-we-protect-our-privacy-in-the-era-of-facial-recognition/">an understanding of the value of safeguarding their personal information</a>. <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27469&LangID=E">Privacy rights are about much more than just having something to hide.</a></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="folder labelled GENERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATION on cluttered desk" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423039/original/file-20210923-25-glc1mz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=496&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation proposes that users control their own personal data.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Addressing biases</h2>
<p>These approaches all attempt to mediate between both the subjective interests of citizens and those of industry. They try to protect human rights while ensuring that the laws adopted don’t impede technological progress. But this balancing act often results in merely illusory protection, without offering concrete safeguards to citizens’ fundamental freedoms. </p>
<p>To achieve this, the solutions adopted must be adapted to the needs and interests of individuals, rather than assumptions of what those parameters might be. Any solution must also include <a href="https://theconversation.com/amp/la-justice-sociale-langle-mort-de-la-revolution-de-lintelligence-artificielle-160579">citizen participation</a>.</p>
<p>Legislative approaches seek only to regulate technology’s negative side effects rather than address their ideological and societal biases. But addressing human rights violations triggered by technology after the fact isn’t enough. Technological solutions must primarily be based on principles of <a href="https://datasociety.net/library/governing-artificial-intelligence/">social justice and human dignity rather than technological risks</a>. They must be developed with an eye to human rights in order to ensure adequate protection.</p>
<p>One approach gaining traction is known as “<a href="https://www.bsr.org/en/our-insights/blog-view/human-rights-by-design">Human Rights By Design</a>.” Here, “companies do not permit abuse or exploitation as part of their business model.” Rather, they “<a href="https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/scholarly_works/250/">commit to designing tools, technologies, and services to respect human rights by default</a>.”</p>
<p>This approach aims to encourage AI developers to categorically consider human rights at every stage of development. It ensures that algorithms deployed in society will remedy rather than exacerbate societal inequalities. It takes the steps necessary to allow us to shape AI, and not the other way around.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168174/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karine Gentelet receives funding from the FQRSC and the SSHRC. The Chair she holds is funded by the foundation of the École normale supérieure de Paris, the Abéona Foundation and Laval University. She is member of Amnistie Internationale Canada Francophone</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sarit K. Mizrahi is affiliated with Abeona-ENS-OBVIA Chair in AI and Social Justice as Research Assistant. Additionally, her Ph.D. research is funded by SSHRC through a Joseph-Armand Bombardier Scholarship.</span></em></p>Applications of artificial intelligence have been shown to include discriminatory practices. This creates a need for meaningful rights-based regulations to ensure that AI will not exacerbate inequalities.Karine Gentelet, Professeure et titulaire de la Chaire Abeona-ENS-OBVIA en intelligence artificielle et justice sociale, Université du Québec en Outaouais (UQO)Sarit K. Mizrahi, Ph.D. in Law Candidate, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1645992021-08-26T01:47:32Z2021-08-26T01:47:32Z‘Do-gooders’, conservatives and reluctant recyclers: how personal morals can be harnessed for climate action<p>There’s no shortage of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/26/record-shattering-heat-becoming-much-more-likely-says-climate-study">evidence</a> pointing to the need to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/commentisfree/2021/jul/26/the-great-barrier-reef-is-a-victim-of-climate-change-but-it-could-be-part-of-the-solution">act urgently</a> on climate change. Most recently, a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-most-sobering-report-card-yet-on-climate-change-and-earths-future-heres-what-you-need-to-know-165395">confirmed</a> Earth has warmed 1.09°C since pre-industrial times and many changes, such as sea-level rise and glacier melt, cannot be stopped.</p>
<p>Clearly, emissions reduction efforts to date have fallen abysmally short. But why, when the argument in favour of climate action is so compelling? </p>
<p>Decisions about climate change require judging what’s important, and how the world should be now and in future. Therefore, climate change decisions are <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1323-9">inherently moral</a>. The rule applies whether the decision is being made by an individual deciding what <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/5/1704S/4596965?login=true">food</a> to eat, or national governments setting <a href="https://ukcop26.org/cop26-goals/">goals</a> at international climate negotiations.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343521000774">research</a> reviewed the most recent literature across the social and behavioural sciences to better understand the moral dimensions of climate decisions. We found some moral values, such as fairness, motivate action. Others, such as economic liberty, stoke inaction. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="graph with arrow leading upwards" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417508/original/file-20210824-26-18xotyq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those who prioritise economic liberty may be less willing to take climate action.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Morals as climate motivators</h2>
<p>Our research uncovered a large body of research confirming people’s moral values are connected to their willingness to act on climate change.</p>
<p>Moral values are the yardstick through which we understand things to be right or wrong, good or bad. We develop personal moral values <a href="https://policy.bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/environment-in-the-lives-of-children-and-families">through our families in childhood</a> and our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304422X18303322?via%3Dihub">social and cultural context</a>. </p>
<p>But which moral values best motivate personal actions? Our research documents <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163852">a study</a> in the United States, which found the values of compassion and fairness were a strong predictor of someone’s willingness to act on climate change.</p>
<p>According to <a href="https://moralfoundations.org">moral foundations theory</a>, the value of compassion relates to humans’ evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel and dislike the pain of others. </p>
<p>Fairness relates to the evolutionary process of “<a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3598-1">reciprocal altruism</a>”. This describes a situation whereby an organism acts in a way that temporarily disadvantages itself while benefiting another, based on an expectation that the altruism will be reciprocated at a later time.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ordinary-people-extraordinary-change-addressing-the-climate-emergency-through-quiet-activism-160548">Ordinary people, extraordinary change: addressing the climate emergency through 'quiet activism'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Conversely, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494415000201?casa_token=ti54dZZ0c9QAAAAA:oxAvuOGeVK2v30PIuo1Q2fs4jLCusQPT5VqAB8QuSV3MDU5YW7L4wTw8W5qZh2AttDaXRmni4w">a study</a> in Australia found people who put a lower value on fairness, compared to either the maintenance of social order or the right to economic freedom, were more likely to be sceptical about climate change. </p>
<p>People may also use moral “disengagement” to justify, and assuage guilt over, their own climate inaction. In other words, they convince themselves that ethical standards do not apply in a particular context. </p>
<p>For example, a <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ajsp.12423#:%7E:text=Our%20results%20suggest%20that%20disengagement,reduced%20engagement%20in%20pro%2Denvironmental">longitudinal study</a> of 1,355 Australians showed over time, people who became more morally disengaged became more sceptical about climate change, were less likely to feel responsible and were less likely to act. </p>
<p>Our research found the moral values driving efforts to reduce emissions (mitigation) were different to those driving climate change adaptation.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2017.1287624">Research in the United Kingdom</a> showed people emphasised the values of responsibility and respect for authorities, country and nature, when talking about mitigation. When evaluating adaptation options, they emphasised moral values such as protection from harm and fair distribution of economic costs. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people on crowd hold signs" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417511/original/file-20210824-23-pi9moo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Moral reasoning helps shape climate beliefs, including climate scepticism.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joel Carrett/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Framing climate decisions</h2>
<p>How government and private climate decisions are framed and communicated affects who they resonate with, and whether they’re seen as legitimate.</p>
<p>Research suggests climate change could be made morally relevant to more people if official climate decisions appealed to moral values associated with right-wing political leanings.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0956797612449177">US study</a> found liberals interpreted climate change in moral terms related to harm and care, while conservatives did not. But when researchers reframed pro-environmental messages in terms of moral values that resonated with conservatives, such as defending the purity of nature, differences in the environmental attitudes of both groups narrowed. </p>
<p>Indeed, research shows moral reframing can change pro-environmental behaviours of different <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103116301056?via%3Dihub">political groups</a>, including <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcr/article/40/2/350/2911026?login=true">recycling habits</a>. </p>
<p>In the US, people were found to recycle more after the practice was reframed in moral terms that resonated with their political ideology. For conservatives, the messages appealed to their sense of civic duty and respect for authority. For liberals, the messages emphasised recycling as an act of fairness, care and reducing harm to others.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-has-never-been-so-important-and-this-ipcc-report-pulls-no-punches-165252">Communicating climate change has never been so important, and this IPCC report pulls no punches</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="person opens lid of recycling bin" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/417512/original/file-20210824-19-1cc45cz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Reframing of messages can help encourage habits such as recycling.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Ross/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When moralising backfires</h2>
<p>Clearly, morals are central to decision-making about the environment. In some cases, this can extend to people adopting – or being seen to adopt – a social identity with moral associations such as “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/22/zero-waste-millennial-bloggers-trash-greenhouse-gas-emissions">zero-wasters</a>”, “<a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/symb.312">voluntary simplifiers</a>” and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847817303054?via%3Dihub">cyclists</a>. </p>
<p>People may take on these identities overtly, such as by posting about their actions on social media. In other cases, a practice someone adopts, such as cycling to work, can be construed by others as a moral action.</p>
<p>Being seen to hold a social identity based on a set of morals may actually have unintended effects. Research has found so-called “<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02362/full">do-gooders</a>” can be perceived by others as irritating rather than inspiring. They may also trigger feelings of inadequacy in others who, as a self-defense mechanism, might then dismiss the sustainable choices of the “do-gooder”.</p>
<p>For example, sociologists have <a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.12366">theorised</a> that some non-vegans avoid eating a more plant-based diet because they don’t want to be associated with the social identity of veganism.</p>
<p>It makes sense, then, that gentle encouragement such as “meat-free Mondays” is likely <a href="https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/josi.12366">more effective</a> at reducing meat consumption than encouraging people to “go vegan” and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494421000451">eliminate</a> meat altogether. </p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>Personal climate decisions come with a host of moral values and quandaries. Understanding and navigating this moral dimension will be critical in the years ahead.</p>
<p>When making climate-related decisions, governments should consider the moral values of citizens. This can be achieved through procedures like <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0591-9">deliberative democracy</a> and <a href="https://www.climateassembly.uk/">citizen’s forums</a>, in which everyday people are given the chance to discuss and debate the issues, and communicate to government what matters most to them.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-most-sobering-report-card-yet-on-climate-change-and-earths-future-heres-what-you-need-to-know-165395">This is the most sobering report card yet on climate change and Earth's future. Here’s what you need to know</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164599/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacqueline Lau is affiliated with WorldFish—an international, not for profit research organization and part of the CGIAR that seeks to deliver research for a more food secure world, particularly for societies most vulnerable women and men. This research was supported by the ARC Centre for Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, and the CGIAR Research Program on Fish Agri-Food Systems.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Song receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Blythe receives funding from the Social Science Research Council (SSHRC).</span></em></p>Understanding the moral dimensions of climate decisions could help promote fairer and more effective climate actionJacqueline Lau, Research Fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook UniversityAndrew Song, Lecturer / ARC Discovery Early Career Research Fellow (DECRA), University of Technology SydneyJessica Blythe, Assistant Professor, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1603282021-06-16T12:36:32Z2021-06-16T12:36:32ZFaith still shapes morals and values even after people are ‘done’ with religion<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/405480/original/file-20210609-14775-tfl15n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C18%2C3056%2C2031&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For many, leaving religion does not mean leaving behind religious morals and values.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/">Jesus Gonzalez/Moment via Getty</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Religion forms a moral foundation for billions of people throughout the world. </p>
<p>In a 2019 survey, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/07/20/the-global-god-divide/">44% of Americans</a> – along with 45% of people across 34 nations – said that belief in God is necessary “to be moral and have good values.” So what happens to a person’s morality and values when they lose faith? </p>
<p>Religion influences morals and values through multiple pathways. It shapes the way people think about and respond to the world, fosters habits such as church attendance and prayer, and provides a web of social connections. </p>
<p>As researchers who study <a href="https://fhssfaculty.byu.edu/directory/sam-hardy">the psychology</a> and <a href="https://soc.unl.edu/philip-schwadel">sociology of religion</a>, we expected that these psychological effects can linger even after observant people leave religion, a group we refer to as “religious dones.” So together with our co-authors <a href="https://hope.edu/directory/people/van-tongeren-daryl/index.html">Daryl R. Van Tongeren</a> and <a href="https://psychology.as.uky.edu/users/njdewa2">C. Nathan DeWall</a>, we sought to test this “religion residue effect” among Americans. Our research addressed the question: Do religious dones maintain some of the morals and values of religious Americans?</p>
<p>In other words, just because some people leave religion, does religion fully leave them? </p>
<h2>Measuring the religious residue effect</h2>
<p>Recent research demonstrates that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000288">religious dones around the world</a> fall between the never religious and the currently religious in terms of thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Many maintain some of the attributes of religious people, such as volunteering and charitable giving, even after they leave regular faith practices behind. So in our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220970814">first project</a>, we examined the association between leaving religion and the five <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4">moral foundations</a> commonly examined by psychologists: care/harm, fairness/cheating, ingroup loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and purity/degradation.</p>
<p>We found that religious respondents were the most likely to support each of the five moral foundations. These involve intuitive judgments focusing on feeling the pain of others, and tapping into virtues such as kindness and compassion. For instance, religious Americans are relatively likely to oppose acts they deem “disgusting,” which is a component of the purity/degradation scale. This aligns with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309353415">previous research on religion and moral foundations</a>.</p>
<p>Most importantly, and in line with the religion residue hypothesis, we have found what we call a “stairstep pattern” of beliefs. The consistently religious are more likely than the dones to endorse each moral foundation, and the religious dones are more likely to endorse them than the consistently nonreligious. The one exception was the moral foundation of fairness/cheating, which the dones and the consistently religious supported at similar rates.</p>
<p>Put another way, after leaving religion, religious dones maintain some emphasis on each of the five moral foundations, though less so than the consistently religious, which is why we refer to this as a stairstep pattern.</p>
<p><iframe id="P7UCF" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/P7UCF/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12620">second project</a> built on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038455">research showing that</a> religion is inextricably linked with values, particularly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6">Schwartz’s Circle of Values</a>, the predominant model of universal values used by Western psychologists. Values are the core organizing principles in people’s lives, and religion is positively associated with the values of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005">security, conformity, tradition and benevolence</a>. These are “social focus values”: beliefs that address a generally understood need for coordinated social action. </p>
<p><iframe id="XDTBk" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/XDTBk/8/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>For this project, we asked a single group of study participants the same questions as they grew older over a period of 10 to 11 years. The participants were adolescents in the first wave of the survey, and in their mid-to-late 20s in the final wave.</p>
<p>Our findings revealed another stairstep pattern: The consistently religious among these young adults were significantly more likely than religious dones to support the social focus values of security, conformity and tradition; and religious dones were significantly more likely to support them than the consistently nonreligious. While a similar pattern emerged with the benevolence value, the difference between the religious dones and the consistently nonreligious was not statistically significant.</p>
<p>Together, these projects show that the religion residue effect is real. The morals and values of religious dones are more similar to those of religious Americans than they are to the morals and values of other nonreligious Americans. </p>
<p>Our follow-up analyses add some nuance to that key finding. For instance, the enduring impact of religious observance on values appears to be strongest among former evangelical Protestants. Among dones who left mainline Protestantism, Catholicism and other religious traditions, the religion residue effect is smaller and less consistent. </p>
<p>Our research also suggests that the religious residue effect can decay. The more time that passes after people leave religion, the more their morals and values come to resemble those of people who have never been religious. This is an important finding, because a large and growing number of Americans <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3088891">are leaving organized religion</a>, and there is still much to be learned about the psychological and social consequences of this decline in religion. </p>
<h2>The growing numbers of nonreligious</h2>
<p>As recently as 1990, only <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3088891">7% of Americans reported having no religion</a>. Thirty years later, in 2020, the percentage claiming to be nonreligious had quadrupled, with <a href="https://www.pewforum.org/2021/01/14/measuring-religion-in-pew-research-centers-american-trends-panel/">almost 3 in 10 Americans having no religion</a>. There are now more nonreligious Americans than affiliates of any one single religious tradition, including the two largest: Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism. </p>
<p>This shift in religious practice may fundamentally change Americans’ perceptions of themselves, as well as their views of others. One thing that seems clear, though, is that those who leave religion are not the same as those who have never been religious. Given the rapid and continued growth in the number of nonreligious Americans, we expect that this distinction will become increasingly important to understanding the morals and values of the American people. </p>
<p>[<em>Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/this-week-in-religion-76/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=religion-explore">Sign up for This Week in Religion.</a>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160328/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Religion affects how people regard qualities like benevolence, kindness, conformity and fairness even after they stop practicing religion.Philip Schwadel, Professor of Sociology, University of Nebraska-LincolnSam Hardy, Professor of Psychology, Brigham Young UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1518262021-02-24T13:28:29Z2021-02-24T13:28:29ZAI is killing choice and chance – which means changing what it means to be human<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385645/original/file-20210222-17-18aj5n4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C6%2C4136%2C2784&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">AI promises to make life easier, but what will humans lose in the bargain?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BritainExhibitionArtificialIntelligence/0f3d0be823a34143b83d228405b84483/photo?Query=robot%20AND%20human&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=334&currentItemNo=2">AP Photo/Frank Augstein</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The history of humans’ use of technology has always been a history of coevolution. Philosophers from Rousseau to Heidegger to Carl Schmitt have argued that technology is never a neutral tool for achieving human ends. Technological innovations – from the most rudimentary to the most sophisticated – <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmBgJjfjG7Q">reshape people</a> as they use these innovations to control their environment. Artificial intelligence is a new and powerful tool, and it, too, is altering humanity.</p>
<p>Writing and, later, the printing press made it possible to carefully record history and easily disseminate knowledge, but it <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Orality-and-Literacy-30th-Anniversary-Edition/Ong/p/book/9780415538381">eliminated centuries-old traditions of oral storytelling</a>. Ubiquitous digital and phone cameras have <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16483509">changed how people experience and perceive events</a>. Widely available GPS systems have meant that drivers rarely get lost, but a reliance on them has also <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/technology-use-or-lose-our-navigation-skills-1.19632">atrophied their native capacity to orient themselves</a>. </p>
<p>AI is no different. While the term AI conjures up anxieties about killer robots, unemployment or a massive surveillance state, there are other, deeper implications. As AI increasingly shapes the human experience, how does this change what it means to be human? Central to the problem is a person’s capacity to make choices, particularly judgments that have moral implications.</p>
<h2>Taking over our lives?</h2>
<p>AI is being used for wide and rapidly expanding purposes. It is being used to <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/how-do-netflixs-algorithms-work-machine-learning-helps-to-predict-what-viewers-will-like">predict which television shows or movies individuals will want to watch</a> based on past preferences and to <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/credit-denial-in-the-age-of-ai/">make decisions about who can borrow money</a> based on past performance and other proxies for the likelihood of repayment. It’s being used to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2019/08/01/ai-is-predicting-the-future-of-online-fraud-detection/">detect fraudulent commercial transactions</a> and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00847-2">identify malignant tumors</a>. It’s being used for hiring and firing decisions in <a href="https://fortune.com/longform/hr-technology-ai-hiring-recruitment/">large chain stores</a> and <a href="https://qz.com/work/1713210/an-experiment-to-find-teachers-who-perform-better-and-stay-longer-shows-promising-results/">public school districts</a>. And it’s being used in law enforcement – from <a href="https://www.yalescientific.org/2020/05/an-algorithmic-jury-using-artificial-intelligence-to-predict-recidivism-rates/">assessing the chances of recidivism</a>, to <a href="https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/Predictive-Policing-Using-AI-Tested-by-Bay-Area-Cops.html">police force allocation</a>, to the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/09/technology/facial-recognition-software.html">facial identification of criminal suspects</a>.</p>
<p>Many of these applications present relatively obvious risks. If the algorithms used for loan approval, facial recognition and hiring are trained on biased data, thereby building biased models, they <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/04/137602/this-is-how-ai-bias-really-happensand-why-its-so-hard-to-fix/">tend to perpetuate existing prejudices and inequalities</a>. But researchers believe that cleaned-up data and more rigorous modeling <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05469-3">would reduce and potentially eliminate algorithmic bias</a>. It’s even <a href="https://hbr.org/2020/11/ai-can-make-bank-loans-more-fair">possible that AI could make predictions that are fairer and less biased</a> than those made by humans.</p>
<p>Where algorithmic bias is a technical issue that can be solved, at least in theory, the question of how AI alters the abilities that define human beings is more fundamental. We have been studying this question for the last few years as part of the Artificial Intelligence and Experience project at UMass Boston’s <a href="https://www.umb.edu/ethics">Applied Ethics Center</a>. </p>
<h2>Losing the ability to choose</h2>
<p>Aristotle argued that the capacity for making practical judgments <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/">depends on regularly making them</a> – on habit and practice. We see the emergence of machines as substitute judges in a variety of workaday contexts as a potential threat to people learning how to effectively exercise judgment themselves. </p>
<p>In the workplace, managers routinely make decisions about whom to hire or fire, which loan to approve and where to send police officers, to name a few. These are areas where algorithmic prescription is replacing human judgment, and so people who might have had the chance to develop practical judgment in these areas no longer will.</p>
<p>Recommendation engines, which are increasingly prevalent intermediaries in people’s consumption of culture, may serve to constrain choice and minimize serendipity. By presenting consumers with algorithmically curated choices of what to watch, read, stream and visit next, companies are replacing human taste with machine taste. In one sense, this is helpful. After all, the machines can survey a wider range of choices than any individual is likely to have the time or energy to do on her own.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A television remote control with button labelled Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ and Sling" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385657/original/file-20210222-15-q6uf03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Services that make recommendations based on preferences, like which movies to watch, reduce chance discoveries.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/EarnsNetflix/4fe39405b33e45e5ae71dff4adb35e6e/photo?Query=Netflix&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=14719&currentItemNo=5">AP Photo/Jenny Kane</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the same time, though, this curation is optimizing for what people are likely to prefer based on what they’ve preferred in the past. We think there is some risk that people’s options will be constrained by their pasts in a new and unanticipated way - a generalization of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-problem-of-living-inside-echo-chambers-110486">“echo chamber”</a> people are already seeing in social media.</p>
<p>The advent of potent predictive technologies seems likely to affect basic political institutions, too. The idea of human rights, for example, is grounded in the insight that human beings are majestic, unpredictable, self-governing agents whose freedoms must be guaranteed by the state. If humanity – or at least its decision-making – becomes more predictable, will political institutions continue to protect human rights in the same way?</p>
<h2>Utterly predictable</h2>
<p>As machine learning algorithms, a common form of <a href="http://www.eitc.org/research-opportunities/new-media-and-new-digital-economy/artificial-intelligence-machine-learning-and-neural-networks/the-future-of-artificial-intelligence/the-three-stages-of-ai/narrow-ai">“narrow” or “weak” AI</a>, improve and as they train on more extensive data sets, larger parts of everyday life are likely to become utterly predictable. The predictions are going to get better and better, and they will ultimately make common experiences more efficient and more pleasant. </p>
<p>Algorithms could soon – if they don’t already – have a better idea about which show you’d like to watch next and which job candidate you should hire than you do. One day, humans may even find a way machines can make these decisions without some of the biases that humans typically display.</p>
<p>But to the extent that unpredictability is part of how people understand themselves and part of what people like about themselves, humanity is in the process of losing something significant. As they become more and more predictable, the creatures inhabiting the increasingly AI-mediated world will become less and less like us.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151826/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By letting machines recommend movies and decide whom to hire, humans are losing their unpredictable nature – and possibly the ability to make everyday judgments, as well.Nir Eisikovits, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass BostonDan Feldman, Senior Research Fellow, Applied Ethics Center, UMass BostonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1537302021-02-04T16:04:46Z2021-02-04T16:04:46ZConflating morality and the law does South Africa’s governing party no good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/381978/original/file-20210202-17-qidyfy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Supporters of Ace Magashule, the secretary general of the ANC, protest outside the court where he appeared on corruption charges. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">EFE-EPA/Conrad Bornman</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the African National Congress (ANC) came to power in South Africa in 1994, it has been dogged by <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-corruption-in-south-africa-isnt-simply-about-zuma-and-the-guptas-113056">corruption</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adt069">abuse of power</a>.</p>
<p>These <a href="https://www.gov.za/address-deputy-president-kgalema-motlanthe-south-african-student-congress%E2%80%99-walter-sisulu-memorial">“sins of incumbency”</a> – the seduction of politicians and public officials by power and their abuse of it for their own ends – became endemic during former president Jacob Zuma’s term (<a href="http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/profiles/president-jacob-zuma-0">May 2009 to February 2018</a>). </p>
<p>The details coming out of the Zondo commission of inquiry into <a href="https://www.statecapture.org.za/">state capture</a> have shown how deeply this has taken root. Can the governing party dig it out?</p>
<p>The ANC passed a resolution on how to deal with dishonesty in its ranks at its <a href="https://www.polity.org.za/article/54th-national-conference-report-and-resolutions-2018-03-26">54th national conference</a> in December 2017.</p>
<p>It resolved that any of its cadres “accused of, or reported to be involved in, corrupt practices are to account to the Integrity Committee immediately or face disciplinary processes”. </p>
<p>It added that those</p>
<blockquote>
<p>who fail to give an acceptable explanation or to voluntarily step down while they face disciplinary, investigative or prosecutorial procedures were to be summarily suspended.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The party’s integrity commission was established in 2013 to be the custodian of this moral stance, after a series of scandals that damaged its public image. </p>
<h2>On a path to political morality?</h2>
<p>This, followed by the adoption of the anti-corruption resolution and election of <a href="http://www.thepresidency.gov.za/profiles/president-cyril-ramaphosa%3A-profile">Cyril Ramaphosa</a> as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-anc-has-a-new-leader-but-south-africa-remains-on-a-political-precipice-89248">president of the ANC</a>, and <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2018-02-15-cyril-ramaphosa-has-been-elected-president-of-south-africa/">of the country</a>, created optimism that, finally, the party was set to mend its ways.</p>
<p>That was easier said than done. </p>
<p>Three years later, the resolution is embroiled in controversies, pitting the ANC’s factions against each other. The biggest test came last November, when the party’s secretary general, Ace Magashule, was charged with corruption and <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/newsletters/comments/mostcommented/never-have-i-done-any-corruption-ace-magashule-insists-he-is-innocent-of-charges-20201114">appeared in court</a>. </p>
<p>He defied the integrity commission’s <a href="https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-12-15-step-aside-anc-integrity-commission-tells-ace-magashule/">call on him to step aside</a>, insisting that only the party’s branches could <a href="https://www.enca.com/news/magasule-only-anc-branches-can-tell-me-step-aside">make that demand</a>.</p>
<p>His loyalists pushed back against the resolution while those aligned to Ramaphosa supported it. The matter became embroiled in legalistic arguments about whether his stepping aside <a href="https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/ace-steps-aside-or-gets-pushed-new-legal-opinion-demands-anc-must-act-against-him-20201202">would be just</a> and in keeping with the ANC’s constitution, and that of the country, <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/exclusive-leaked-legal-opinion-states-it-is-unconstitutional-for-ace-magashule-to-step-aside-f42ee890-1d08-4ee6-b79a-c9e427202b89">or not</a>. </p>
<p>But this misses the point in that it conflates morality and the law. It will scupper the resolution, robbing the ANC of a chance to clean up its act. If the distinction between morality and legality is blurred, the resolution could be mired in misconceptions. </p>
<h2>Morality versus the law</h2>
<p>Morality shapes people’s lives, including their thoughts and actions, on the basis of what society generally accepts as right and wrong. It is used to check people’s <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2828&context=journal_articles">“self-interested, emotional, or sentimental reactions to serious questions of human conduct”</a>. This is what enables people to coexist.</p>
<p>Morality depends on one’s conscience to freely comply with societal expectations.</p>
<p>The law, which the legal scholar Arthur Scheller Jr defines as <a href="http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol36/iss3/12">“an ordination of reason for the common good”</a>, is a system of rules that prescribe behaviour and is enforceable.</p>
<p>Various formations in society, such as political parties, may have their own laws or rules to regulate the conduct of their members. But such rules should not contradict the supreme law of the land - the constitution - especially in a constitutional democracy founded on the principles of the rule of law. </p>
<p>Morals and laws are not binaries. They complement each other. When the law enhances moral conscience and morality promotes legal consciousness, people can live together harmoniously and ethically. </p>
<p>The confluence of morality and law is what makes for a good society. This is what the ANC fails to grasp. It uses the law to stymie its own resolution, which is basically about the party reclaiming its political morality. </p>
<p>Instead of those who run foul of the resolution stepping aside, contrasting legal opinions are sought. They don’t provide clarity; they cloud a resolution that has all along been clear.</p>
<p>As the American sociologist Robert MacIver once <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2249546.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Af9813a7f3af0eddd4d1954c109924039">said</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>to turn all moral obligations into legal obligations would be to destroy morality.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Innocent till proven guilty</h2>
<p>Subjecting the ANC’s “step-aside” resolution to legal interpretation ignores the context that gave rise to it, and its aim of restoring morality within the party. That is imperative if the ANC is to regain trust in society and win votes.</p>
<p>Sticking to the legal principle that one is innocent until proven guilty, just to keep those who flout the resolution in office, misses the point. </p>
<p>The guilt or innocence of a person is a function of a juridical process or law. That they should step aside is a moral stance. It is also for this reason that the party established its integrity commission, whose mandate is to </p>
<blockquote>
<p>protect the image of the organisation and enhance its standing in society by ensuring, among others, that urgent action is taken to deal with public officials, leaders and members of the ANC who face damaging allegations of improper conduct.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The commission cannot pronounce on the guilt or blamelessness of a person, but on political morality – a function of moral conscience and consciousness. Unfortunately, it is becoming difficult for some in the ANC to appreciate this. Indeed, as the American political activist Upton Sinclair once <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Search-Government-Effiency-Hubris-Helplessness/dp/007554900X">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Way forward</h2>
<p>The conflation of morality with legality has obfuscated a resolution that led many corruption-weary South Africans to believe that the ANC, which fancies itself <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-anc-insists-its-still-a-political-vanguard-this-is-what-ails-democracy-in-south-africa-141938">“the leader of society”</a>, was set on a new path of moral political rectitude. </p>
<p>Building organisational integrity requires that party leaders be guided by their moral conscience. These should shape the party’s moral disposition in line with its values and principles to achieve its purpose, which has always been about the common good. </p>
<p>Changing the party’s rules to make the integrity commission’s recommendations binding is not going to make party leaders and members internalise morality. What the ANC needs is genuine commitment to institutionalise ethical leadership among all in its ranks.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153730/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mashupye Herbert Maserumule receives funding from the National Research Foundation for his postgraduate studies. He is affiliated with the South African Association of Public Administration and Management(SAAPAM), and also serves as the Chief of its scholarly publication- Journal of Public Administration. </span></em></p>Morals and laws are not binaries. They complement each other to enable harmonious coexistence.Mashupye Herbert Maserumule, Professor of Public Affairs, Tshwane University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1459902020-09-30T12:28:38Z2020-09-30T12:28:38ZThe urge to punish is not only about revenge – unfairness can unleash it, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359837/original/file-20200924-18-oeo7km.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C732%2C5371%2C3095&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everyone wants a slice of the pie.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/four-friends-eating-pizza-outdoors-partial-view-royalty-free-image/707450897">Westend61 via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you and your friend are at a party and someone orders pizza. You’re starving. You put a couple of slices on your plate and sit down at the table. Before you start eating, you excuse yourself to wash your hands.</p>
<p>On your way back from the bathroom, you look across the room just in time to see your friend grab one of the slices off your plate and start to eat it. This would probably make you mad, right? You might even feel an urge to get back at them somehow. </p>
<p>Now imagine a slightly different scenario. You and your friend are at the same party but before you have the chance to get pizza, you excuse yourself to wash your hands. While you’re gone, the pizza is served and your friend grabs a couple slices for themself but only one for you.</p>
<p>This would also probably make you kind of mad, right? But why? This time your friend didn’t actually steal your pizza, so why does it feel like they did something wrong?</p>
<p>The answer is that unfairness alone is upsetting – upsetting enough to drive people to punish those who have benefited from unfair outcomes. </p>
<p>Along with our colleague <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=u6_SEO4AAAAJ&hl=en">Nichola Raihani</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XNWktKIAAAAJ&hl=en">we</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nVi8unEAAAAJ&hl=en">recently</a> completed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.001">psychology experiment</a> that supports this concept. The idea that unfairness alone can motivate punishment runs counter to a lot of existing research that suggests <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160">punishment</a> is driven primarily by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171298">revenge</a>. </p>
<p>Why does this matter? Because understanding what motivates punishment can help shed light on the functions it serves in human societies – and possibly even why punishment evolved in the first place. </p>
<h2>Deterrence and leveling</h2>
<p>Revenge-based punishment may serve an important deterrence function – encouraging those who have harmed you to behave better in the future. </p>
<p>Inequity-based punishment, on the other hand, may serve an important leveling function – making sure you’re not worse off than those around you, potentially giving you a competitive edge – or at least preventing others from gaining too much of a step up.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A statue of Lady Justice with a sword in one hand and scales in the other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Humans have been concerned with justice for ages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/statue-of-lady-justice-royalty-free-image/155419475">georgeclerk/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In our study, we wanted to understand what drives people to punish others. Is it revenge, inequity or both? </p>
<p>We paired up thousands of participants who had never met in an online economic game in which they made decisions about real money. In one condition, just as in the first pizza example, one player stole money from another player. In some cases, depending on the amount of money the victim started with, stealing meant the thief ended up with more money than the victim.</p>
<p>We expected this theft would motivate victims to punish and we were right: People do not like being stolen from and would pay to punish thieves, reducing their income in the game. This evidence supports the idea that punishment is motivated by revenge.</p>
<p>However, this scenario didn’t tell us whether people also punish in response to unfairness. To test this possibility, we designed a similar situation – one that resulted in one player ending up with more than the other – but, in this case, no theft occurred. Rather, like the second pizza example, one player had a chance to gift money to the other player, at no cost to themself, or the money disappeared.</p>
<p>In these cases, a player who refused to give money to the other would sometimes end up with more money – the unfair outcome we were curious about. Interestingly, we found people were more likely to punish when they had less money than the other player – even when no theft had occurred. </p>
<p>This showed us that unfairness alone, even in the absence of a direct transgression like theft, is enough to motivate punishment. </p>
<h2>A multipurpose behavior</h2>
<p>Our new findings are exciting because they suggest that people have different motivations to punish others. Sure, people are motivated to seek revenge on those who have stolen from them, but they are also willing to punish in cases where they simply have less than others. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>This finding suggests punishment likely evolved for different uses – deterrence as well as leveling the playing field – showcasing how one behavior can serve different functions. That punishment can serve such different functions implies that both deterrence and resource leveling might have increased the genetic fitness of our ancestors. In other words, as humans evolved, people who punished to deter others or level the playing field passed on more of their genes than those who punished less.</p>
<p>So next time you’re deciding whether to take more than your fair share of pizza, maybe think twice. Otherwise you might unwittingly become the target of a hungry punisher looking for justice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>During the study period, I received funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). It was an Azrieli Global Scholars award. Our lab had other external funding during this time, but it was not relevant to this project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Deutchman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unfairness alone is upsetting enough to drive people to punish lucky recipients of unfair outcomes.Paul Deutchman, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Boston CollegeKatherine McAuliffe, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boston CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1428982020-08-24T12:19:25Z2020-08-24T12:19:25ZIn the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, what should you say to someone who refuses to wear a mask? A philosopher weighs in<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354158/original/file-20200821-20-zkw4lj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C42%2C5632%2C3687&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A 'no mask, no taco' sign at Chelsea Market in New York City</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/los-tacos-employee-wearing-a-mask-poses-near-a-no-mask-no-news-photo/1267250805?adppopup=true">Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Multiple studies have shown that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302301">masks reduce the transmission</a> of virus-loaded droplets from people with COVID-19. However, according to a <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/315590/americans-face-mask-usage-varies-greatly-demographics.aspx">Gallup poll</a>, almost a fifth of Americans say they rarely or never wear a mask in public. </p>
<p>This raises a question: Can the anti-maskers be persuaded to wear masks? </p>
<p>To some, it might appear that such a question has no ethical dimension. Wearing masks saves lives, so everyone should do it. Some even believe <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/27/opinion/us-republicans-coronavirus.html">anti-maskers are simply selfish</a>. </p>
<p>But as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jVbxIksAAAAJ&hl=en">philosopher</a> who studies ethics and persuasion, I argue that things are more complicated than that. </p>
<h2>Kant on love and respect</h2>
<p>To start, consider one of the most influential ethical frameworks in Western thought: that of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant.</p>
<p>According to Kant, morality is ultimately about respect and love. Respecting someone, <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals/GcEmAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=kant+metaphysics+of+morals&printsec=frontcover">Kant claims</a>, is “limiting our self-esteem by the dignity of humanity in another person.” In other words, we should refrain from undermining others’ dignity.</p>
<p>Alongside respect, for Kant, we should also show others a certain type of love. To love others in the moral sense, <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals/GcEmAAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=kant+metaphysics+of+morals&printsec=frontcover">he writes</a>, is not about having a feeling, but is rather to “make others’ ends my own (provided only that these are not immoral).” </p>
<p>That is, moral love requires that we help others achieve their aims, as long as those aims aren’t immoral. </p>
<p>Altogether, this means that treating others well requires an understanding about what gives them their dignity and what things they are ultimately trying to achieve. </p>
<h2>What is social dignity?</h2>
<p>One could ask why trying to persuade someone to wear a mask would threaten their dignity.</p>
<p>Consider one type of dignity in particular: social dignity. According to ethicist <a href="https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/suzanne-killmister">Suzy Killmister</a>, social dignity consists in someone <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/contours-of-dignity-9780198844365?cc=us&lang=en&">living up to the standards</a> that her community holds her to. The specific standards that matter are those which the community sees as being “shameful” to violate. </p>
<p>Someone’s social dignity can be damaged whether or not she accepts her society’s standards. One way this can happen is if she is a member of different social groups with conflicting standards. </p>
<p>For example, imagine a teenager from a conservative religious community who attends a secular public school. According to her religious community’s standards, it is shameful to dress immodestly. According to the standards of her classmates, however, it is shamefully unfashionable to dress conservatively. She faces a dilemma of dignity: No matter how she dresses, she cannot achieve full social dignity.</p>
<h2>Shame and social standards</h2>
<p>Because a significant majority of Americans do wear masks, and because of its importance in protecting public health, mask-wearing has become a social standard connected to shame. </p>
<p>In response, epidemiologist <a href="https://www.populationmedicine.org/jmarcus">Julia Marcus</a> has recently <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/dudes-who-wont-wear-masks/613375/">cautioned</a> that it is not effective to shame people who do not wear masks. Instead, she proposed approaching anti-maskers with empathy.</p>
<p>To see the ethical importance of Marcus’ suggestion, consider <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/315590/americans-face-mask-usage-varies-greatly-demographics.aspx">another finding</a> from a Gallup poll: While most groups do report always or often wearing masks in public, that is not true for Republicans. Over 50% of Republicans say they never, rarely, or only sometimes do. Similarly, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/17/upshot/coronavirus-face-mask-map.html">other studies</a> have found sharp regional differences in mask-wearing.</p>
<p>A Republican whose social group sees wearing a mask as shameful faces a dilemma of dignity. For example, a sheriff in Washington state <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/dont-be-a-sheep-sheriffs-across-u-s-rebel-against-new-statewide-mask-requirements/">told a cheering crowd</a> that he would not enforce the state’s mask mandate. His advice was: “Don’t be a sheep.” </p>
<p>Similarly, psychologist <a href="https://faculty.lawrence.edu/glickp/">Peter Glick</a> has suggested that wearing a mask is seen by some groups as “<a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/masks-and-emasculation-why-some-men-refuse-to-take-safety-precautions/">unmanly</a>” because it appears to them as a weakness.</p>
<p>People in such communities are subject to anti-mask standards, even as their larger society’s standards require masks. Their dignity is therefore in a precarious position. Ethically speaking, then, any respectful engagement with them calls for a recognition of that fact, not a blunt attempt at persuasion.</p>
<h2>Making small efforts</h2>
<p>Remember that Kant says that, alongside respecting others’ dignity, we must also help them achieve their aims, provided those aims are not immoral. Refusing to wear a mask might well be immoral. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>However, trying to maintain one’s social status by living up to society’s standards is not intrinsically immoral. If that is what is driving anti-maskers’ refusals, then Kant’s framework could help pro-maskers see the ethical nuance of the situation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/354159/original/file-20200821-16-gayfut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">US President Donald Trump wears a mask as he visits Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in July 2020.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/president-donald-trump-wears-a-mask-as-he-visits-walter-news-photo/1226303255?adppopup=true">Photo by ALEX EDELMAN/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Appreciating this ethical challenge could also help those who are seeking to persuade anti-maskers. They might need to offer anti-maskers some way of maintaining their dignity in their anti-mask social groups while wearing a mask in other settings.</p>
<p>For example, they might find examples of conservatives, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/11/trum-wears-face-mask-walter-reed-visit-357249">including President Trump</a>, who wear a mask in some contexts but not others. After all, even small efforts in mask-wearing can save lives. </p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to correct the proportion of Americans who say they rarely or never wear a mask in public.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/142898/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Marshall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A philosopher argues that wearing masks could be tied to living up to the standards of one’s social group and recognizing that could help in persuading anti-maskers.Colin Marshall, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1408292020-06-18T12:17:29Z2020-06-18T12:17:29ZHere’s why some people are willing to challenge bullying, corruption and bad behavior, even at personal risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342503/original/file-20200617-94078-1gy6mv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=209%2C286%2C7029%2C4341&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Certain characteristics mean moral rebels are willing to not go with the flow.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rebellion-concept-royalty-free-image/1170636104">Francesco Carta fotografo/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a longtime Republican, spent months standing up to intense and highly public <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-lindsey-graham-throw-out-ballots/">pressure from members of Congress</a>, who urged him to throw out legally cast ballots, <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-smoking-gun-tape-is-worse-than-nixons-but-congressional-republicans-have-less-incentive-to-do-anything-about-it-152643">and from President Donald Trump</a>, who asked him to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome of the election.</p>
<p>Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois became the first Republican member of Congress to <a href="https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/01/07/congressman-adam-kinzinger-president-donald-trump-removal-25th-amendment-us-capitol-riot/">call for Trump’s immediate removal</a> from office by the 25th Amendment, following the mob riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.</p>
<p>Ben Danielson, a well-regarded medical director of a Seattle medical clinic, resigned in November to protest ongoing racism in the hospital, noting concerns about his “<a href="https://crosscut.com/equity/2020/12/revered-doctor-steps-down-accusing-seattle-childrens-hospital-racism">own complicity as a representative of a hospital</a> that does not treat people of color as it should.”</p>
<p>All of these people spoke up to call out bad behavior, even in the face of immense pressure to stay silent. Although the specifics of each of these cases are quite different, what each of these people share is a willingness to take action. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-dCo5lYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Psychologists like me</a> describe those who are willing to defend their principles in the face of potentially negative social consequences such as disapproval, ostracism and career setbacks as “moral rebels.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674241831">Moral rebels</a> speak up in all types of situations – to tell a bully to cut it out, to confront a friend who uses a racist slur, to report a colleague who engages in corporate fraud. What enables someone to call out bad behavior, even if doing so may have costs?</p>
<h2>The traits of a moral rebel</h2>
<p>First, moral rebels generally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1012765">feel good about themselves</a>. They tend to have high self-esteem and to feel confident about their own judgment, values and ability. They also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346170">believe their own views are superior</a> to those of others, and thus that they have a social responsibility to share those beliefs.</p>
<p>Moral rebels are also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.002">less socially inhibited than others</a>. They aren’t worried about feeling embarrassed or having an awkward interaction. Perhaps most importantly, they are far less concerned about conforming to the crowd. So, when they have to choose between fitting in and doing the right thing, they will probably choose to do what they see as right. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The orbitofrontal cortex (in green on this brain that is facing to the left) looks different in moral rebels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/digital-illustration-of-human-brain-with-royalty-free-illustration/98193711">Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Research in neuroscience reveals that people’s ability to stand up to social influence is reflected in anatomical differences in the brain. People who are more concerned about fitting in show <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.012">more gray matter volume in one particular part of the brain</a>, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex. This area right behind your eyebrows creates memories of events that led to negative outcomes. It helps guide you away from things you want to avoid the next time around – such as being rejected by your group. </p>
<p>People who are more concerned about conforming to their group also show <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.035">more activity in two other brain circuits</a>; one that responds to social pain – like when you experience rejection – and another that tries to understand others’ thoughts and feelings. In other words, those who feel worst when excluded by their group try the hardest to fit in.</p>
<p>What does this suggest about moral rebels? For some people, feeling like you’re different than everyone else feels really bad, even at a neurological level. For other people, it may not matter as much, which makes it easier for them to stand up to social pressure. </p>
<p>These characteristics are totally agnostic as to what the moral rebel is standing up for. You could be the lone anti-abortion voice in your very liberal family or the lone abortion rights advocate in your very conservative family. In either scenario it’s about standing up to social pressure to stay silent – and that pressure of course could be applied about anything.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kids learn to stand up for what they believe in when they see their role models doing so.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/girl-jumps-holding-a-sign-while-she-and-her-family-protest-news-photo/1216479646">Apu Gomes/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The path of a moral rebel</h2>
<p>What does it take to create a moral rebel?</p>
<p>It helps to have <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08753-003">seen moral courage in action</a>. Many of the civil rights activists who participated in marches and sit-ins in the southern United States in the 1960s had parents who displayed moral courage and civic engagement, as did many of the Germans who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. Watching people you look up to show moral courage can inspire you to do the same.</p>
<p>A budding moral rebel also needs to feel empathy, imagining the world from someone else’s perspective. Spending time with and really getting to know people from different backgrounds helps. White high school students who had more contact with people from different ethnic groups – in their neighborhood, at school and on sports teams – have higher levels of empathy and see people from different minority groups in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053">more positive ways</a>.</p>
<p>These same students are more likely to report taking some action if a classmate uses an ethnic slur, such as by directly challenging that person, supporting the victim or telling a teacher. People who are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1">more empathetic</a> are also more likely to defend someone who is being bullied.</p>
<p>Finally, moral rebels need particular skills and practice using them. One study found that teenagers who <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01682.x">held their own in an argument with their mother</a>, using reasoned arguments instead of whining, pressure or insults, were the most resistant to peer pressure to use drugs or drink alcohol later on. Why? People who have practiced making effective arguments and sticking with them under pressure are better able to use these same techniques with their peers. </p>
<p>Moral rebels clearly have particular characteristics that enable them to stand up for what’s right. But what about the rest of us? Are we doomed to be the silent bystanders who meekly stand by and don’t dare call out bad behavior?</p>
<p>Fortunately, no. It is possible to develop the ability to stand up to social pressure. In other words, anyone can learn to be a moral rebel.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 18, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine A. Sanderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychologists have identified the characteristics of ‘moral rebels’ who make the tough choice to stand up for their principles in the face of negative consequences.Catherine A. Sanderson, Poler Family Professor and Chair of Psychology, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1346412020-04-07T12:06:26Z2020-04-07T12:06:26ZHoarding during the coronavirus isn’t just unnecessary, it’s ethically wrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325874/original/file-20200406-104477-yz1gw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=31%2C15%2C5223%2C3482&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Long lines at a grocery store in Spring, Texas, as people rush to stockpile.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/APTOPIX-Virus-Outbreak/96cce38e00f245fbaa3c5f2893f2d5bf/4/0">AP Photo/David J. Phillip</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As people rush to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/coronavirus-stockpile-emergency-list-food-hand-sanitiser-panic-buying-a9373061.html">stockpile provisions</a> in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, stores have placed restrictions on the purchase of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/18/business/supermarkets-rationing-coronavirus/index.html">basic goods</a> and <a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20200325/cvs-moves-to-prevent-stockpiling-of-drugs">medicines</a>. </p>
<p>When supply chains are vulnerable to spikes in demand, one person’s stockpiling can mean another person’s shortage.</p>
<p>As a philosopher who has <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315678443/chapters/10.4324/9781315678443-10">studied</a> ethical action in difficult circumstances, I know that when many people fail to act ethically, it can seem that each individual has less of an obligation to act well.</p>
<p>At this time, American political philosopher John Rawls’ theory of justice can offer useful moral guidance.</p>
<h2>Ethics for difficult times</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674000780&content=toc">John Rawls famously argued</a> that in a fully just society, two circumstances are in place: everyone upholds the just society, and conditions of life are reasonably favorable. </p>
<p>When society is not fully just, people don’t necessarily have to follow the rules. Rawls argued that if there was systemic injustice, <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674000780&content=toc">civil disobedience can be justified</a>. For example, when a minority group is denied the vote, protesters are permitted to disrupt business and stage sit-ins.</p>
<p>Other scholars, following this kind of argument, have said that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265252?seq=1">it can be ethical to lie</a>, when doing so thwarts others’ evil plans.</p>
<p>In other words, individuals are allowed to deviate from the cooperative norms that underpin a fully just society, under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, scholars also argue that there are some lines one must not cross, even when others act badly and conditions are difficult.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674000780&content=toc">For Rawls</a>, a particularly significant set of requirements include the “natural duties.”</p>
<p>These apply to all people and hold in virtually all circumstances. They include refraining from causing unnecessary suffering and harm to innocents, and not aggravating injustice, when possible.</p>
<h2>Stockpiling can cause harm</h2>
<p>The warning against harming innocent others or increasing the risk of harm, is relevant to most forms of stockpiling.</p>
<p>Consumers stocking up on medical grade face masks <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/3/20/21188369/face-masks-short-supply-coronavirus-donations">contribute to shortages</a> of supplies for health care workers, which is not ethically permissible.</p>
<p>Similarly, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/14/technology/coronavirus-purell-wipes-amazon-sellers.html">buying up hand sanitizer</a> to sell at premium rates depletes the supply of what has come to be an essential good, not out of need but out of greed. It, too, unnecessarily puts others in harm’s way.</p>
<p>There are less obvious ways in which our shopping behavior can perpetrate harms, or risk of harms, on innocent third parties.</p>
<p>Consider the effects on <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/03/can-you-get-coronavirus-grocery-store/608659/">grocery store workers</a>. Frequent trips to the store may pose a risk to low-wage workers who have virtually no pandemic preparedness training. It increases their vulnerability to infection. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=68%2C7%2C5022%2C3137&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325362/original/file-20200403-74225-1tpuznh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stockpiling can leave some families without medicines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Virus-Outbreak-Illinois/e7bfdb7255d64bbfabee150ac43c4a89/1/0">AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Venturing to the grocery store to buy only what is needed, and less often, is a more ethical solution.</p>
<h2>Stockpiling can aggravate injustice</h2>
<p>Amassing goods during short-term shortages can increase the <a href="http://bostonreview.net/politics-philosophy-religion/samuel-scheffler-rawlsian-diagnosis-donald-trump">economic disadvantages</a> that many people already suffer.</p>
<p>Consider those who cannot afford to stockpile. Hoarding makes it more difficult for those who are less privileged to get what they need when they do shop.</p>
<p>Stockpiling can also turn people against each other. Other shoppers could transform from fellow members of our community, into obstacles to survival and well-being. </p>
<p>This view of others <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674000780&content=toc">undermines the very possibility</a> of social cooperation, which is a precondition of a just society.</p>
<h2>Some exceptions</h2>
<p>Still, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/3504695?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">one is permitted to protect one’s life</a>.</p>
<p>Some people have a genuine need for drugs to manage asthma, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/health/coronavirus-drug-shortages.html">for example</a>. Securing the drug supply that one will predictably need is warranted. If limited supply means that not all asthma sufferers can get drugs, then <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-rawls-lexicon/circumstances-of-justice/DC283065F46547AF87FA332AC96DC94E">no just resolution</a> is possible.</p>
<p>But importantly, this concern will not apply to most people, for most goods. <a href="https://slate.com/business/2020/03/grocery-stores-hoarding-supply-chain.html">No evidence</a> supports the view that food supply chains are dangerously vulnerable right now, for instance.</p>
<p>Stockpiling can perpetrate harm and threaten the social cohesion that is foundational to a well-ordered society. Even when others stockpile, one has the obligations to do no harm and to do what one can to support social cooperation. </p>
<p>These priorities are important to keep in mind as new and difficult ethical problems emerge during this pandemic.</p>
<p>[<em>You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=upper-coronavirus-help">Read The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jaime Ahlberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>One person’s stockpiling can mean another one’s shortage. A philosopher reminds us of our social and moral obligations at this time.Jaime Ahlberg, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1227002019-10-07T12:01:39Z2019-10-07T12:01:39ZWhat’s so wrong about lying in a job interview<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295642/original/file-20191004-118260-766wj2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A few things to know before you head out for a job interview.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/doubtful-unconvinced-african-american-hr-manager-1368244226?src=PBTlYOlK7W0Gxac4JRQ0mw-1-6"> fizkes/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Getting a new job is tough.</p>
<p>I know this not just because of my own research as a professor studying <a href="https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/annals.2016.0121">the intersection of business and ethics</a>, but also because of the countless candidates I interviewed for major firms in my previous career. It’s this experience I bring to mind as I consider a question I’ve seen and heard asked recently: When is it ethical to lie in a job interview?</p>
<p>Philosophers and ethicists have identified many schools of thought around what makes a certain action ethically “good” instead of “evil.”</p>
<p>Here are three, from my perspective, that can guide us as to what is right or not about lying in job interviews.</p>
<h2>1. What if everyone lied?</h2>
<p>Let’s start with an approach called <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological">deontology</a>. Deontologists believe what makes something good or evil is the structure of the act itself. </p>
<p>The philosopher Immanuel Kant <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=XT1ZAwAAQBAJ">summed this up</a> in his “principle of universalizability,” which summarizes ethics down to a simple question: “If everybody did the same thing, would the action defeat its purpose?”</p>
<p>For instance, if everybody stole, then the concept of property would be meaningless. Therefore, stealing is immoral. If everyone disrespected one another, then nobody would have any respect, so disrespecting others is immoral. </p>
<p>And coming back to job interviews, if everyone lied, then nobody could be trusted, and hiring decisions would become even more arbitrary and random. In essence, deontology explains that lying is always wrong because if everyone lied, human communications would break down entirely. </p>
<h2>2. Is greater good an argument?</h2>
<p>But what if someone had a good reason to lie in a job interview? Perhaps the person was out of a job and had children to support. In that case, he or she might consider that lying during an interview was outweighed by the greater good of providing for one’s family. </p>
<p>This approach uses a more <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism">consequentialist</a> point of view, in which it’s not the nature of the act that makes it moral or immoral, but the consequences of it. </p>
<p>Philosophers like <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/">John Stuart Mill</a> and <a href="https://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm">Jeremy Bentham</a>, for example, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=V3qqW2Ni6hUC">argued</a> that <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=qeVFNvlsVH0C">if an act produces</a> a meaningful good for a meaningful number of people, while limiting harm to others, then the act must be a moral one. </p>
<p>Consequentialism suggests that even a seemingly evil act can be morally right if it leads to good outcomes for the most people. In this philosophical approach, one might justify stealing from the rich to give to the poor, or even killing someone who was a threat to others. </p>
<p>So how does this relate to a job interview?</p>
<p>There’s no way to perfectly judge this, but the answer, I argue, will generally be no. The benefits of personally gaining a job and income must be weighed against the harm caused to the individual who would have received the job had the lie not been told. That is, if you obtain a job by lying, you’re denying it to the more qualified person who would have otherwise earned the job.</p>
<p>Individuals have to also factor in the harm they are doing to their new coworkers, their managers and the owners of the company, who may be counting on them to have skills or experience they don’t have. </p>
<h2>3. Will it really benefit you?</h2>
<p>Finally, individuals have to examine the degree to which the job will realistically benefit them in the long term. To address that, let’s look at a third moral standard: that of the <a href="https://www.upscsuccess.com/sites/default/files/documents/Ethical_Theory_An_Anthology_%40nadal.pdf#page=211">ethical egotist</a>. The ethical egotist has a rather different approach to morality, believing that the right thing to do is whatever helps him or her get ahead. </p>
<p>Abstract rules of morality are less important to the egotist than doing what’s best for themselves. It is from this perspective that lying in a job interview <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/joes.12204">most often occurs</a>, </p>
<p>Therefore, the only question on the ethical egoist’s mind would be how much benefit they could receive from lying in a job interview. Research indicates that even from this perspective, it’s not a good idea to lie.</p>
<p>When people lie in a job they are most often inflating their match with the job’s requirements and claiming skills they don’t really have. A review of research in 2005 identified nearly 200 studies concluding that <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x">people were less happy</a> when there were in a job that did not fit them. They also performed poorly.</p>
<p>In short, lying in a job interview increases the chance that people might end up right back on the job market. And in today’s digital world, <a href="https://www.topechelon.com/blog/placement-process/candidate-lying-in-job-interview/">there is also a high risk</a> of being found out. </p>
<p>Yet, some people do lie in job interviews and <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-you-have-to-lie-in-a_b_8180016">there</a> <a href="https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/things-you-should-always-lie-about-in-a-job-interview.html/">are</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lies-you-can-tell-in-a-job-interview-2015-6">many</a> <a href="https://www.bustle.com/articles/113132-7-times-its-ok-to-lie-in-a-job-interview">articles</a> that push people into believing that on some things, it can be the right thing to do. </p>
<p>But according to the research, there’s no moral perspective – not even looking out for your own good – that supports the idea of lying in job interviews.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This piece is part of our series on ethical questions arising from everyday life. We would welcome your suggestions. Please email us at <a href="mailto:ethical.questions@theconversation.com">ethical.questions@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p>
<p>[ <em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=youresmart">You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122700/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>G. James Lemoine does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What makes an action ‘good’ or ‘evil’? And are there situations under which lying for a job interview might be justified?G. James Lemoine, Assistant Professor Organization and Human Resources Department, University at BuffaloLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1211782019-09-13T00:18:32Z2019-09-13T00:18:32ZActually, it’s OK to disagree. Here are 5 ways we can argue better<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292153/original/file-20190912-190035-9o106u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1388%2C0%2C5960%2C4285&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">When we fail to consider the ethics of arguing, this makes it perilously easy to mistreat others.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Argument is everywhere. From the kitchen table to the boardroom to the highest echelons of power, we all use argument to persuade, investigate new ideas, and make collective decisions.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we often fail to consider the ethics of arguing. This makes it perilously easy to mistreat others — a critical concern in personal relationships, workplace decision-making and political deliberation.</p>
<h2>The norms of argument</h2>
<p>Everyone understands there are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">basic norms</a> we <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Systematic_Theory_of_Argumentation.html?id=DfMih3LWVBYC&redir_esc=y">should follow when arguing</a>. </p>
<p>Logic and commonsense dictate that, when deliberating with others, we should be open to their views. We should listen carefully and try to understand their reasoning. And while we can’t all be Socrates, we should do our best to respond to their thoughts with clear, rational and relevant arguments.</p>
<p>Since the time of <a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/gorgias.html">Plato</a>, these <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-009-9160-0">norms have been defended</a> on what philosophers call “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-know-that-what-you-know-is-true-thats-epistemology-63884">epistemic</a>” grounds. This means the norms are valuable because they promote knowledge, insight and self-understanding. </p>
<p>What “<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-teach-all-students-to-think-critically-35331">critical thinking</a>” is to internal thought processes, these “norms of argument” are to interpersonal discussion and deliberation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-good-arguments-at-school-and-everywhere-else-121305">How to make good arguments at school (and everywhere else)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why ‘ethical’ arguing is important</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0020174X.2019.1637776">recent article,</a> I contend that these norms of argument are also <em>morally important</em>.</p>
<p>Sometimes this is obvious. For example, norms of argument can overlap with commonsense ethical principles, like honesty. Deliberately misrepresenting a person’s view is wrong because it involves knowingly saying something false.</p>
<p>More importantly, but less obviously, being reasonable and open-minded ensures we treat our partners in argument in a consensual and reciprocal way. During arguments, people open themselves up to attaining worthwhile benefits, like understanding and truth. If we don’t “play by the rules”, we can frustrate this pursuit. </p>
<p>Worse, if we change their minds by misleading or bamboozling them, this can amount to the serious wrongs of <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40237210?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">manipulation or intimidation</a>.</p>
<p>Instead, obeying the norms of argument shows respect for our partners in argument as intelligent, rational individuals. It acknowledges they can change their minds based on reason. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978">No, you're not entitled to your opinion</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This matters because <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/kantview/#H5">rationality is an important part of people’s humanity</a>. Being “endowed with reason” is lauded in the <a href="https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/">UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights</a> to support its fundamental claim that humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights.</p>
<p>Obeying the norms of argument also has good effects on our character. Staying open-minded and genuinely considering contrary views helps us learn more about our own beliefs. </p>
<p>As philosopher <a href="https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/">John Stuart Mill observed</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This open-mindedness helps us combat the moral perils of <a href="https://psychologenie.com/concept-of-group-polarization-in-psychology-explained">bias and groupthink</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, the norms of argument aren’t just good for individuals, they are also good for groups. They allow conflicts and collective decisions to be approached in a respectful, inclusive way, rather than forcing an agreement or <a href="https://theconversation.com/comic-how-to-have-better-arguments-about-the-environment-or-anything-else-98554">escalating the conflict</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, arguments can <em>make</em> collectives. Two arguers, over time, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282544990_What_Virtue_Argumentation_Theory_Misses_The_Case_of_Compathetic_Argumentation">can collectively achieve a shared intellectual creation</a>. As partners in argument, they define terms, acknowledge areas of shared agreement, and mutually explore each other’s reasons. They do something <em>together</em>.</p>
<p>All this accords with everyday experience. Many of us have enjoyed the sense of respect when our views have been welcomed, heard and seriously considered. And all of us know what it feels like to have our ideas dismissed, misrepresented or caricatured.</p>
<h2>Why we have trouble arguing calmly</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, being logical, reasonable and open-minded is easier said than done. When we argue with others, their arguments will inevitably call into question our beliefs, values, experience and competence.</p>
<p>These challenges are not easy to face calmly, especially if the topic is one we care about. This is because we like to think of ourselves as <a href="https://positivepsychology.com/self-efficacy/">effective and capable</a>, rather than mistaken or misguided. We also care about our <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?__s=goqjzsqdzqpwcb7jc8de">social standing</a> and like to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/changepower/201808/11-ways-project-confidence-and-be-taken-seriously">project confidence</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/arguments-matter-even-if-they-come-down-to-semantics-43188">Arguments matter, even if they come down to “semantics”</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In addition, we suffer from <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19586162">confirmation bias</a>, so we actively avoid evidence that we are wrong. </p>
<p>Finally, we may have material stakes riding on the argument’s outcome. After all, one of the main reasons we engage in argument is to get our way. We want to convince others to do what we want and follow our lead.</p>
<p>All this means that when someone challenges our convictions, we are psychologically predisposed to hit back hard.</p>
<p>Worse still, our capacity to evaluate whether our opponents are obeying the norms of argument is poor. All the psychological processes mentioned above don’t just make it hard to argue calmly and reasonably. They also trick us into <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417084524.htm">mistakenly thinking our opponents are being illogical</a>, making us feel as if it’s them, and not us, who’s failing to argue properly.</p>
<h2>How should we navigate the moral complexity of arguing?</h2>
<p>Arguing morally isn’t easy, but here are five tips to help:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Avoid thinking that when someone starts up an argument, they are mounting an attack. To adapt a saying by <a href="https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/oscar_wilde_128481">Oscar Wilde</a>, there is only one thing in the world worse than being argued with, and that is <em>not</em> being argued with. Reasoned argument acknowledges a person’s rationality, and that their opinion matters.</p></li>
<li><p>There is always more going on in any argument than who wins and who loses. In particular, the relationship between the two arguers can be at stake. Often, the real prize is demonstrating respect, even as we disagree.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t be too quick to judge your opponent’s standards of argument. There’s a good chance you’ll succumb to “<a href="https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn">defensive reasoning</a>”, where you’ll use all your intelligence to find fault with their views, instead of genuinely reflecting on what they are saying. Instead, try and work with them to clarify their reasoning.</p></li>
<li><p>Never assume that others aren’t open to intelligent argument. <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/lets-argue-communicative-action-in-world-politics/F785E45F33231B4E600F97281BA5A6A3">History is littered</a> with examples of people genuinely changing their minds, even in the most high stakes environments imaginable.</p></li>
<li><p>It’s possible for both sides to “lose” an argument. The recently announced <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-question-time-becomes-political-theatre-does-it-still-play-a-vital-role-in-government-121177">inquiry into question time in parliament</a> provides a telling example. Even as the government and opposition strive to “win” during this daily show of political theatre, the net effect of their appalling standards is that everyone’s reputation suffers.</p></li>
</ol>
<h2>The upshot</h2>
<p>There is a saying in applied ethics that the worst ethical decisions you’ll ever make are the ones you don’t recognise <em>as</em> ethical decisions. </p>
<p>So, when you find yourself in the thick of argument, do your best to remember what’s morally at stake. </p>
<p>Otherwise, there’s a risk you might lose a lot more than you win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/121178/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hugh Breakey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When we argue, it’s far too easy to mistreat others. This is why it’s important to follow certain norms of argument, remain open-minded and remember what’s morally at stake.Hugh Breakey, Senior Research Fellow, Moral philosophy, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Law Futures Centre, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1224052019-08-28T20:03:37Z2019-08-28T20:03:37ZWhy Chinese and Hong Kong students clash in Australia: the patriotic v the protest movement<p>The <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-25/new-violence-erupts--hong-kong--police-fire-tear-gas-water-canon/11446626">protests in Hong Kong</a> have led to some open clashes here in Australia between students from mainland China and others from Hong Kong.</p>
<p>There were angry scenes between pro-China and pro-Hong Kong groups in <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/hundreds-gather-in-sydney-for-police-heavy-pro-china-rally">Sydney</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/17/pro-hong-kong-rally-in-melbourne-turns-violent-amid-clashes-with-china-supporters">Melbourne</a>, as well as at universities in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/24/china-hong-kong-students-clash-university-queensland">Brisbane</a> and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-20/hong-kong-protester-targeted-in-doxxing-attack-on-social-media/11429520">Adelaide</a>.</p>
<p>These clashes are troubling for the Australian university sector, which enrols <a href="https://internationaleducation.gov.au/research/DataVisualisations/Pages/Student-number.aspx">182,555 mainland Chinese and 11,822 Hong Kongers</a> as international students at various education institutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-why-the-hong-kong-protesters-feel-they-have-nothing-to-lose-122031">Trust Me, I’m An Expert: Why the Hong Kong protesters feel they have nothing to lose</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our current research suggests differences in the curriculum studied by mainland Chinese and Hong Kong students may help to explain the beliefs underpinning the protest movements.</p>
<p>Our research involved in-depth interviews of a random sample of more than a dozen international postgraduate students from mainland China who are studying, or very recently have been, at Western Australian universities.</p>
<p>The interviews took place in late 2018 – before the recent Hong Kong protests. We asked the participants about their experiences studying in Chinese schools where <a href="https://www.cgie.org/blog/resources/papers-publications/development-moral-education-china/">Moral Education</a> is a compulsory subject.</p>
<h2>Lessons in China</h2>
<p>The Moral Education curriculum teaches Chinese children to be politically proud of the Chinese Communist Party (<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party">CCP</a>) and loyal to the ideals of a One-China worldview.</p>
<p>Moral Education is a stand-alone subject and also embedded within other subjects, such as history and Chinese literacy studies. Moral Education starts being taught in the early years of schooling and continues throughout high school and during undergraduate university studies. </p>
<p>In primary school, all Chinese children are supposed to join the Young Pioneers, a <a href="https://www.asiatimes.com/2017/06/article/chinas-young-pioneers-reform-ideological-control/">130 million-strong youth organisation controlled by the CCP</a>.</p>
<p>In high school, teachers invites students who achieve highly academically and morally to join the <a href="http://www.ccyl.org.cn/">Communist Youth League</a>. In university, excellent students are invited to join the Communist Party.</p>
<p>In contrast, Hong Kong students do not study Moral Education and cannot join the Young Pioneers, Youth League or the Communist Party.</p>
<h2>When East meets West</h2>
<p>Preliminary indications from our interviews suggest that when mainland Chinese students arrive in Western countries for postgraduate studies they carry with them a moral duty to uphold their national identity. This identity is arguably constructed through the Moral Education lessons.</p>
<p>The following are translated Mandarin quotes from participants in our study. Each quote comes from a different student, but we have de-identified them to protect their identity. They are talking about their experiences of studying Moral Education in their primary and high school years:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was taught to love our motherland and love our country. It’s the right thing to do.</p>
<p>We were taught many slogans that were inspirational, positive and patriotic. It taught us to love our country, our family and our society.</p>
<p>In secondary school Moral Education made us all feel we are part of one China and what the government is doing is to give us a better life.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We are also learning from our interviews that even after mainland Chinese students study in Western universities for several years, they are unlikely to change their previously learnt ideological positions.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think although the Communist Party is a one-party dictatorship, because in a big country like China it is very difficult to apply democracy and maintain the sustainability otherwise it will be too chaotic.</p>
<p>When I was standing under the party flag and sworn in to join our Communist Party it was so exciting. After so many years of ideological and political education, I believe that the Communist Party is the most advanced organisation of our society.</p>
<p>Now, especially when we are living overseas, if you hear the Chinese national anthem it brings me to tears of pride, belonging and identity.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Sympathy for the Communist Party</h2>
<p>Another phenomenon our interviews revealed is that many of our participants expressed strong sympathy towards the CCP government.</p>
<p>That holds even after they learn about facts and events that have been censored in China, including the 1989 <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-05/china-tiananmen-square-massacre-passed-on-secretly/11168538">Tiananmen Square massacre</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I will most likely participate (in) rallies like welcoming President Xi’s visit to Australia because I am […] Chinese and I have a sense of belonging and responsibility attached to this Chinese identity. I also will be vocal about protecting China’s sovereignty.</p>
<p>China is a big country with a large population and there are still many people who are not well educated, therefore they are easy to be incited by others. Although the one party is never 100% perfect, it at least proved itself that most people in China have a good life under its leadership.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Isolated in Australia</h2>
<p>Over the course of three interviews with each participant in our study, we discovered many Chinese international students feel isolated from Australian friendship circles.</p>
<p>They expressed concern at the lack of opportunities to truly engage with Australian students during their time living here. Many worry that local Australian students just aren’t interested in them.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Actually I have little knowledge about how Australian society works – aside from the common social norms. I don’t know where I can access such knowledge. Some locals take it for granted that we should have known this, but we really don’t as we grew up in a totally different place.</p>
<p>For me I tend to have the impression that the local students believe we Chinese students are not interested in talking to them, so they would not take the initiative and talk to us either. I suggest that our university can do more about it like organising activities so we could access local friendships.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-universities-cant-rely-on-india-if-funds-from-chinese-students-start-to-fall-122052">Australian universities can't rely on India if funds from Chinese students start to fall</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>International education should be a two-way transaction, deep in its engagement and fluid in its ability to change as we change.</p>
<p>But what these interviews show is the strong feelings many students from mainland China have about their country and government, which perhaps explains why they feel anger towards those who protest against that way of life.</p>
<p>The growing trend of these Chinese graduates returning to their homeland for work opportunities also has a bearing on their continuing patriotism and sense of national identity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122405/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The protests in Hong Kong have led to clashes between Chinese students here in Australia. What is it that makes those from mainland China so patriotic towards their country and leadership?Christine Cunningham, Senior Lecturer in Educational Leadership, Edith Cowan UniversityClive Barstow, Professor of Creative Arts / Executive Dean Arts & Humanities, Edith Cowan UniversityWei Zhang, PhD candidate, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1143842019-07-02T14:00:39Z2019-07-02T14:00:39ZMoral science confirms people behave better when they think they’re being watched<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280205/original/file-20190619-171200-1rr08c8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If there exists one moral code that can be shared and agreed by almost all cultures and religions, then it must be the concept of “never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself”. This has come to be known as “the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/27/magazine/does-the-golden-rule-hold-up-in-modern-society.html">golden rule</a>”. </p>
<p>But do people in modern societies really follow the teaching of this principle, especially when there are financial consequences to their actions? <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/research/themes/golden-rule/">Our research</a> brought this question into the laboratory and set out to answer it with <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.12708">a simple game of bargaining</a>. </p>
<p>We invited 300 people to the laboratory at the Centre for Experimental Economics at the University of York to make a series of decisions regarding the split of a fixed amount of money between themselves and another anonymous person in the room. The idea was participants would be required to split an amount of money between themselves and another participant –- with one person in the pair deciding how much they both should get. This was then relayed to a third party who put the offer to the participant.</p>
<p>Each participant could offer their partner anything from zero to the full amount in whole pounds. If the partner said “yes” to the offer, they both received the money. But if the other person rejected the offer (as they felt it was not enough), this would result in a breakdown of the negotiation, meaning both got nothing from this round of the game.</p>
<p>Each participant would in turn experience both roles (the proposer, who makes the offers and the responder, who needs to respond to the offers) with multiple different partners. This increased the chance that one person in the responder role would need to respond to the same offer they made when they acted as the proposer.</p>
<p>What we were particularly interested in was how people would react when they played the responder’s role and were confronted with the same proposal they themselves made. If someone is playing by the golden rule, then they should have no problem being on the receiving end saying “yes” to the offers that equal the ones they made And indeed, we found that most people’s behaviour conforms to the golden rule – in that about 93% of people would say yes to the offers that equal what they proposed to others. </p>
<h2>Being watched</h2>
<p>As the saying goes, one good turn deserves another, and in our experiment, it seemed this was true. Those people who followed the golden rule earned more from the negotiations, compared to the people who chose to go against the golden rule.</p>
<p>But while the figure of 93% indicates that most people followed the golden rule, which sounds encouraging, we found that if people knew their behaviour was not being observed by their opponents, then the percentage of golden rule behaviour dropped by nearly 20%, and only 73% of participants stuck to the rule. </p>
<p>This finding echoes <a href="https://today.uconn.edu/2016/02/keeping-an-eye-on-human-behavior">observations from social psychology</a> that show people behave in a nicer way when they know they are being watched. Indeed, even a poster with eyes on it <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9424-big-brother-eyes-make-us-act-more-honestly/">changes how people behave</a>. And it seems when the chance of being observed is low, people are more prone to evade a moral code.</p>
<h2>Thinking it over</h2>
<p>We found contemplation matters in how people made their decisions. Those who took longer to decide how to split the money were more likely to stray from the golden rule. This may well be because the golden rule is easy to apply, so a longer decision time might reflect the sophisticated nature of the person who is taking a variety of (possibly competing) factors into the decision making process. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280211/original/file-20190619-171271-1s8tgg6.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sharing those pennies – with a bit extra for yourself?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pexels</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found experience played a small role in people’s decision making too. Those who played the proposer’s role first were slightly more likely to be a golden rule follower, compared to those who first played the responder’s role. </p>
<p>We found that gender, socio-economic status or cultural factors didn’t make a difference to the golden rule behaviour, which verifies its universality. We also found that people’s golden rule behaviour was not driven by their monetary pursuit – which might come as a surprise – but rather it is the <a href="https://www.york.ac.uk/research/themes/golden-rule/">power of the moral code</a> itself that drives the behaviour. This is in part down to the notion of “projection bias”, where people have the tendency to project their own thoughts, preferences, and behaviour onto other people – so the idea of unevenly splitting a sum of money while the other person is sitting right in front of you seems problematic. </p>
<p>What this all shows is that so-called “good behaviour” is dependant on on a number of factors –- including whether a person believes they are being observed, or not. This indicates that although most people do follow some form of moral code, to what extent they abide by these rules does differ situation to situation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114384/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most people follow some form of moral code, but to what extent they abide by these rules does differ in various situations.Yuan Ju, Chair professor in the Department of Economics, University of YorkJiawen Li, Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1138012019-03-20T18:09:08Z2019-03-20T18:09:08ZBig gods came after the rise of civilisations, not before, finds study using huge historical database<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264615/original/file-20190319-60972-18hsrny.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What came first – all-seeing Gods or complex societies?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Guercino_%28Giovan_Francesco_Barbieri%29_-_God_the_Father_and_Angel_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg">God the Father and Angel, Guercino Giovan Francesco Barbieri via Wikimedia Commons</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When you think of religion, you probably think of a god who rewards the good and punishes the wicked. But the idea of morally concerned gods is by no means universal. Social scientists have <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Religion_in_Human_Evolution.html?id=xHr-uN4XpAgC&redir_esc=y">long known</a> that small-scale traditional societies – the kind missionaries used to dismiss as “pagan” – envisaged a spirit world that cared little about the morality of human behaviour. Their concern was less about whether humans behaved nicely towards one another and more about whether they carried out their obligations to the spirits and displayed suitable deference to them. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the world religions we know today, and their myriad variants, either demand belief in all-seeing punitive deities or at least postulate some kind of broader mechanism – such as karma – for rewarding the virtuous and punishing the wicked. In recent years, researchers have debated how and why these moralising religions came into being. </p>
<p>Now, thanks to our massive new database of world history, known as <a href="http://seshatdatabank.info/">Seshat</a> (named after the Egyptian goddess of record keeping), we’re starting to get some answers. </p>
<h2>Eye in the sky</h2>
<p>One <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Big_Gods.html?id=2VMtfYiQCXEC&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y">popular theory has argued</a> that moralising gods were necessary for the rise of large-scale societies. Small societies, so the argument goes, were like fish bowls. It was almost impossible to engage in antisocial behaviour without being caught and punished – whether by acts of collective violence, retaliation or long-term reputational damage and risk of ostracism. But as societies grew larger and interactions between relative strangers became more commonplace, would-be transgressors could hope to evade detection under the cloak of anonymity. For cooperation to be possible under such conditions, some system of surveillance was required. </p>
<p>What better than to come up with a supernatural “eye in the sky” – a god who can see inside people’s minds and issue punishments and rewards accordingly. Believing in such a god might make people think twice about stealing or reneging on deals, even in relatively anonymous interactions. Maybe it would also increase trust among traders. If you believe that I believe in an omniscient moralising deity, you might be more likely to do business with me, than somebody whose religiosity is unknown to you. Simply wearing insignia such as body markings or jewellery alluding to belief in such a god might have helped ambitious people prosper and garner popularity as society grew larger and more complex.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, early efforts to investigate the link between religion and morality <a href="https://static.squarespace.com/static/548f2ae8e4b068057bfcc7de/t/54ad88dde4b0d393380c0e16/1420658909346/religion-and-morality.pdf">provided mixed results</a>. And while supernatural punishment appears to <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2014.2556">have preceded</a> the rise of chiefdoms among Pacific Island peoples, in <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(14)01372-4">Eurasia studies suggested</a> that social complexity emerged first and moralising gods followed. These regional studies, however, were limited in scope and used quite crude measures of both moralising religion and of social complexity. </p>
<h2>Sifting through history</h2>
<p>Seshat is changing all that. Efforts to build the database began nearly a decade ago, attracting contributions from more than 100 scholars at a cost of millions of pounds. The database uses a sample of the world’s historical societies, going back in a continuous time series up to 10,000 years before the present, to analyse hundreds of variables relating to social complexity, religion, warfare, agriculture and other features of human culture and society that vary over time and space. Now that the database is finally ready for analysis, we are poised to test a long list of theories about global history. </p>
<p>One of the earliest questions we’re testing is whether morally concerned deities drove the rise of complex societies. We analysed data on 414 societies from 30 world regions, using 51 measures of social complexity and four measures of supernatural enforcement of moral norms to get to the bottom of the matter. New research we’ve just <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4.epdf?author_access_token=ziGhOukLjNhglzp5OQS7zNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NQWry6dYOGQyA-bXzKgwmdXZYf33tBHVXgtelJ8x_2ZXq913jlDnDq_3acJoAlImUSHS6l-mh4t0NQq1Iotn3BW3_CPTAV35352sfHH1dRaA==">published in the journal Nature</a> reveals that moralising gods come later than many people thought, well after the sharpest rises in social complexity in world history. In other words, gods who care about whether we are good or bad did not drive the initial rise of civilisations – but came later. </p>
<p>As part of our research we created a map of where big gods appeared around the world. In the map below, the size of the circle represents the size of the society: bigger circles represent larger and more complex societies. The numbers in the circle represent the number of thousand years ago we find the first evidence of belief in moralising gods. For example, Emperor Ashoka adopted Buddhism 2,300 years ago after he had already established a large and complex South Asian empire known as the Mauryan Empire. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=253&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264826/original/file-20190320-93060-79mf40.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=318&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The global distribution and timing of beliefs in moralising gods shows that big gods appear in big societies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Whitehouse, Francois Savage et al. Nature.</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our statistical analysis showed that beliefs in supernatural punishment tend to appear only when societies make the transition from simple to complex, around the time when the overall population exceed about a million individuals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/264827/original/file-20190320-93048-78h9ux.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Social complexity tends to increase more rapidly before the appearance of moralising gods, not after.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Whitehouse, Francois Savage et al. Nature.</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We are now looking to other factors that may have driven the rise of the first large civilisation. For example, Seshat data suggests that daily or weekly collective rituals – the equivalent of today’s Sunday services or Friday prayers – appear early in the rise of social complexity and we’re looking further at their impact. </p>
<p>If the original function of moralising gods in world history was to hold together fragile, ethnically diverse coalitions, what might declining belief in such deities mean for the future of societies today? Could modern secularisation, for example, contribute to the unravelling of efforts to cooperate regionally – such as the European Union? If beliefs in big gods decline, what will that mean for cooperation across ethnic groups in the face of migration, warfare, or the spread of xenophobia? Can the functions of moralising gods simply be replaced by other forms of surveillance? </p>
<p>Even if Seshat cannot provide easy answers to all these questions, it could provide a more reliable way of estimating the probabilities of different futures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113801/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Harvey Whitehouse’s work on this project was supported by an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Large Grant, an Advanced grant from the European Research Council, a grant from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, and an award from the Templeton World Charity Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick E. Savage’s work on this project was supported by a grant from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme, funding from a Keio Research Institute at SFC Startup Grant and a Keio Gijuku Academic Development Fund Individual Grant.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Turchin’s work on this project was supported by a John Templeton Foundation grant to the Evolution Institute, a Tricoastal Foundation grant to the Evolution Institute, and an ESRC Large Grant to the University of Oxford.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Pieter Francois’ work on this project was supported by an ESRC Large Grant, an Advanced grant from the European Research Council, and a grant from the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.</span></em></p>God only started watching over us quite recently, according to a new study that analysed 414 societies from 30 world regions.Harvey Whitehouse, Chair professor, University of OxfordPatrick E. Savage, Associate Professor in Environment and Information Studies, Keio UniversityPeter Turchin, Professor of Anthropology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and Mathematics, University of ConnecticutPieter Francois, Associate Professor in Cultural Evolution, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1107452019-02-28T11:41:07Z2019-02-28T11:41:07ZHow being beautiful influences your attitudes toward sex<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/260786/original/file-20190225-26174-mfvubs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Beauty can mean more opportunities – but can it also influence values?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/painting-male-portrait-oil-on-canvas-708034999?src=4_54FaVD-kL8jWYGZvrdng-2-69">Nataliass/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>People tend to feel strongly about matters of sexual morality, such as premarital sex or gay marriage. </p>
<p>Some sources of these differences are obvious. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2011.557005">Religion</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.11.016">media portrayals</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00451.x">parents and peers</a> are big social forces that shape attitudes about sex.</p>
<p>But could something as innocuous as the way we look spark these different outlooks, too? In a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12544">recently published article</a>, I studied this question.</p>
<h2>Beauty and opportunity</h2>
<p>Compared with the rest of us, most beautiful people lead charmed lives.</p>
<p>Studies show that pretty people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000340">tend to get favorable treatment</a>. They secure better jobs and earn higher salaries. Others are friendlier toward them. With this extra money and social support, they’re better equipped to fend off any consequences of their actions. For instance, the better-looking can get <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x">more benefit of the doubt from juries</a>. </p>
<p>Their lives are most charmed, though, in matters of sex and romance. While many benefits of beauty are small – a slightly higher salary offer here, a better performance evaluation there – the romantic benefits are larger and more consistent. Good-looking people on average have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.014">more sexual opportunities and partners</a>. </p>
<p>Could this create a sense, among attractive people, that anything goes when it comes to sex? Could it make them less inclined <a href="https://mic.com/articles/54313/the-value-placed-on-virginity-is-one-of-history-s-biggest-travesties#.J3MWGtyOM">to value sexual purity</a>? And might sexually experienced people belittle the moral costs of sex in order to feel better about their own past conduct?</p>
<p>If so, we would expect good-looking people to be the most tolerant ones where sex is concerned. They would have less restrictive views on issues like premarital sex, abortion or gay marriage.</p>
<h2>A link to conservatism?</h2>
<p>But you could also argue the opposite. </p>
<p>Higher salaries and greater success in the job market might pull good-looking people toward more conservative views when it comes to taxes or economic justice. </p>
<p>Since conservatives, on average, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02489.x">dislike sexual freedom more than liberals do</a>, identifying with conservatives for economic reasons – or simply moving in conservative social circles – might make the beautiful less, not more, tolerant where sex is concerned. Along these lines, studies have found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.12.008">good looks are associated with conservatism</a> among politicians. </p>
<p>Attractiveness could then plausibly associate with higher or lower standards for what sexual activities are morally acceptable. Or the two arguments could cancel each other out, as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9075-x">one study of college students</a> suggested.</p>
<h2>Digging into the surveys</h2>
<p>To further explore this issue, I turned to two large, prominent surveys of Americans’ views: the <a href="https://www.gss.norc.org/">General Social Survey</a> from 2016 and the <a href="https://electionstudies.org/">American National Election Studies</a> from 1972. </p>
<p>Both surveys were administered face-to-face. And, unusually, both studies asked the person administering the survey to evaluate the respondent’s looks on a one-to-five scale. (The respondent doesn’t see the score. The study’s designers weren’t that heedless of social awkwardness.)</p>
<p>This measure of beauty isn’t rigorous. But it does resemble quick personal judgments made in everyday life. Moreover, the decades-long gap between the studies gives some sense of whether effects persist across a generation’s worth of cultural change.</p>
<p>The surveys also asked about legal and moral standards relevant to sex, such as how restrictive abortion laws should be, whether gay marriage should be legal and about the acceptability of premarital, extramarital and gay sex.</p>
<p>In both studies, the better-looking seem more relaxed about sexual morality. For instance, in the data from 2016, 51 percent of those whose looks were rated above average said a woman who wants an abortion for any reason should legally be allowed to have one. Only 42 percent of those with below-average looks said the same. This nine-point difference increases to 15 points when accounting for factors like age, education, political ideology and religiosity.</p>
<p>This pattern repeated for almost all questions. The one exception was a question that asked when adultery was morally acceptable. Almost all respondents said “never” to that, washing out differences between the more and less attractive.</p>
<h2>Are morals opportunistic?</h2>
<p>If past experience is what makes beautiful people more tolerant toward issues like abortion and gay marriage, we would not expect them to be notably more tolerant about matters in which looks don’t apply. This proves to be true. Good-looking respondents in these surveys aren’t detectably more open, for example, to a legal right to die or to accepting civil disobedience.</p>
<p>These results are consistent with other findings showing that getting away with violating norms can make you more casual about those norms in the future. Whether in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-34111-8_5">white-collar crime</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12102">police violence</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2642034">international human-rights violations</a>, those who pull off one questionable action often become more willing to justify doing the same, or perhaps even a little more, in the future.</p>
<p>The same could be said for sex. If you’ve have a lot of sexual experiences in the past, it may color your attitudes toward the vast range of sexual possibilities – even those that don’t directly apply to your own sexuality or personal experience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/110745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Urbatsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Beautiful people tend to lead more charmed lives. Could their attractiveness also color their views on issues like abortion, premarital sex and gay marriage?Robert Urbatsch, Associate Professor of Political Science, Iowa State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1057142018-11-15T11:45:18Z2018-11-15T11:45:18ZSci-fi movies are the secret weapon that could help Silicon Valley grow up<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244833/original/file-20181109-116820-1dd6y55.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If you don't want to be facing down an angry dinosaur, pay attention to what happens on screen.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/mediaviewer/rm2687618048">Universal Pictures</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If there’s one line that stands the test of time in Steven Spielberg’s 1993 classic “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/">Jurassic Park</a>,” it’s probably Jeff Goldblum’s exclamation, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” </p>
<p>Goldblum’s character, Dr. Ian Malcolm, was warning against the hubris of naively tinkering with dinosaur DNA in an effort to bring these extinct creatures back to life. Twenty-five years on, his words are taking on new relevance as a growing number of scientists and companies are grappling with how to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/12/tech-humanities-misinformation-philosophy-psychology-graduates-mozilla-head-mitchell-baker">tread the line between “could” and “should”</a> in areas ranging from <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/527">gene editing</a> and <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/meet-the-scientists-bringing-extinct-species-back-from-the-dead-1539093600">real-world “de-extinction”</a> to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-19/biohackers-are-implanting-everything-from-magnets-to-sex-toys">human augmentation</a>, <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/16/17978596/stephen-hawking-ai-climate-change-robots-future-universe-earth">artificial intelligence</a> and many others. </p>
<p>Despite growing concerns that powerful emerging technologies could lead to unexpected and wide-ranging consequences, innovators are struggling with how to develop beneficial new products while being socially responsible. Part of the answer could lie in <a href="https://mango.bz/books/films-from-the-future-by-andrew-maynard-458-b">watching more science fiction movies</a> like “Jurassic Park.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244822/original/file-20181109-36763-1x9u650.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Just because you can….</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.throwbacks.com/jeff-goldblum-talks-jurassic-park/">Universal Pictures</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Hollywood lessons in societal risks</h2>
<p>I’ve long been interested in how innovators and others can better understand the increasingly complex landscape around the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=b8NhWc4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">social risks and benefits associated with emerging technologies</a>. Growing concerns over the impacts of tech on jobs, privacy, security and even the ability of people to live their lives without undue interference highlight the need for new thinking around how to innovate responsibly. </p>
<p>New ideas require creativity and imagination, and a willingness to see the world differently. And this is where science fiction movies can help.</p>
<p>Sci-fi flicks are, of course, notoriously unreliable when it comes to accurately depicting science and technology. But because their plots are often driven by the intertwined relationships between people and technology, they can be remarkably insightful in revealing social factors that affect successful and responsible innovation. </p>
<p>This is clearly seen in “Jurassic Park.” The movie provides a surprisingly good starting point for thinking about the pros and cons of modern-day genetic engineering and the growing interest in <a href="https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130310-extinct-species-cloning-deextinction-genetics-science/">bringing extinct species back from the dead</a>. But it also opens up conversations around the nature of complex systems that involve both people and technology, and the potential dangers of “permissionless” innovation that’s driven by power, wealth and a lack of accountability.</p>
<p>Similar insights emerge from a number of other movies, including Spielberg’s 2002 film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/">Minority Report</a>” – which presaged a growing capacity for <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/artificial-intelligence-is-now-used-predict-crime-is-it-biased-180968337/">AI-enabled crime prediction</a> and the ethical conundrums it’s raising – as well as the 2014 film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/">Ex Machina</a>.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244824/original/file-20181109-37973-1eh9qw0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Movie geniuses always have blind spots that viewers can hopefully learn from.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0470752/mediaviewer/rm1897135872">Universal Pictures International</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As with “Jurassic Park,” “Ex Machina” centers around a wealthy and unaccountable entrepreneur who is supremely confident in his own abilities. In this case, the technology in question is artificial intelligence. </p>
<p>The movie tells a tale of an egotistical genius who creates a remarkable intelligent machine – but he lacks the awareness to recognize his limitations and the risks of what he’s doing. It also provides a chilling insight into potential dangers of creating machines that know us better than we know ourselves, while not being bound by human norms or values.</p>
<p>The result is a sobering reminder of how, without humility and a good dose of humanity, our innovations can come back to bite us.</p>
<p>The technologies in “Jurassic Park,” “Minority Report” and “Ex Machina” lie beyond what is currently possible. Yet these films are often close enough to emerging trends that they help reveal the dangers of irresponsible, or simply naive, innovation. This is where these and other science fiction movies can help innovators better understand the social challenges they face and how to navigate them. </p>
<h2>Real-world problems worked out on-screen</h2>
<p>In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, journalist Kara Swisher asked, “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/21/opinion/who-will-teach-silicon-valley-to-be-ethical.html">Who will teach Silicon Valley to be ethical</a>?” Prompted by a growing litany of socially questionable decisions amongst tech companies, Swisher suggests that many of them need to grow up and get serious about ethics. But ethics alone are rarely enough. It’s easy for good intentions to get swamped by fiscal pressures and mired in social realities.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=693&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=693&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=693&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=871&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=871&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244961/original/file-20181111-39548-r1p8kd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=871&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elon Musk has shown that brilliant tech innovators can take ethical missteps along the way.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/SpaceX-Moon/f67fc5d84eb149ba8c1a3c3f059165ea/1/0">AP Photo/Chris Carlson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Technology companies increasingly need to find some way to break from business as usual if they are to become more responsible. High-profile cases involving companies like <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-killing-democracy-with-its-personality-profiling-data-93611">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/uber-cant-be-ethical-its-business-model-wont-allow-it-85015">Uber</a> as well as Tesla’s <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/27/17911428/sec-lawsuit-elon-musk-tesla-funding-tweet">Elon Musk</a> have highlighted the social as well as the business dangers of operating without fully understanding the consequences of people-oriented actions. </p>
<p>Many more companies are struggling to create socially beneficial technologies and discovering that, without the necessary insights and tools, they risk blundering about in the dark.</p>
<p>For instance, earlier this year, researchers from Google and DeepMind <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.05162.pdf">published details of an artificial intelligence-enabled system</a> that can lip-read far better than people. According to the paper’s authors, the technology has enormous potential to improve the lives of people who have trouble speaking aloud. Yet it doesn’t take much to imagine how this same technology could threaten the privacy and security of millions – especially when coupled with long-range surveillance cameras.</p>
<p>Developing technologies like this in socially responsible ways requires more than good intentions or simply establishing an ethics board. People need a sophisticated understanding of the often complex dynamic between technology and society. And while, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/12/tech-humanities-misinformation-philosophy-psychology-graduates-mozilla-head-mitchell-baker">as Mozilla’s Mitchell Baker suggests</a>, scientists and technologists engaging with the humanities can be helpful, it’s not enough.</p>
<h2>Movies are an easy way into a serious discipline</h2>
<p>The “new formulation” of complementary skills Baker says innovators desperately need already exists in a thriving interdisciplinary community focused on <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/responsible-innovation-31243">socially responsible innovation</a>. My home institution, the <a href="http://sfis.asu.edu">School for the Future of Innovation in Society</a> at Arizona State University, is just one part of this. </p>
<p>Experts within this global community are actively exploring ways to translate good ideas into responsible practices. And this includes the need for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.196">creative insights into the social landscape around technology innovation</a>, and the imagination to develop novel ways to navigate it.</p>
<p>Here is where science fiction movies become a powerful tool for guiding innovators, technology leaders and the companies where they work. Their fictional scenarios can reveal potential pitfalls and opportunities that can help steer real-world decisions toward socially beneficial and responsible outcomes, while avoiding unnecessary risks.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=459&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/244826/original/file-20181109-34102-1kuntvu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People love to come together as a movie audience.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nationalarchives/3002426059">The National Archives UK</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And science fiction movies bring people together. By their very nature, these films are social and educational levelers. Look at who’s watching and discussing the latest sci-fi blockbuster, and you’ll often find a diverse cross-section of society. The genre can help build bridges between people who know how science and technology work, and those who know what’s needed to ensure they work for the good of society.</p>
<p>This is the underlying theme in my new book “<a href="https://mango.bz/books/films-from-the-future-by-andrew-maynard-458-b">Films from the Future: The Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies</a>.” It’s written for anyone who’s curious about emerging trends in technology innovation and how they might potentially affect society. But it’s also written for innovators who want to do the right thing and just don’t know where to start.</p>
<p>Of course science fiction films alone aren’t enough to ensure socially responsible innovation. But they can help reveal some profound societal challenges facing technology innovators and possible ways to navigate them. And what better way to learn how to innovate responsibly than to invite some friends round, open the popcorn and put on a movie?</p>
<p>It certainly beats being blindsided by risks that, with hindsight, could have been avoided.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/105714/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard is author of the book "Films from the Future: The Technology and Morality of Sci-Fi Movies" (published by Mango), on which this article is based. </span></em></p>As fictional inventors make terrible choices on the big screen, real-world tech innovators can learn from their example how not to make the same kinds of ethical mistakes.Andrew Maynard, Director, Risk Innovation Lab, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/768132018-08-13T12:28:02Z2018-08-13T12:28:02ZHow we use good deeds to justify immoral behaviour<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/231299/original/file-20180809-30476-e7w48e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'I helped my neighbour move yesterday - you can't rescue everyone.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photographee.eu/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>We all like to think of ourselves as morally sound individuals. However in doing so we often assume that morality is static – that we are consistently moral to some extent over time. In reality, research suggests that most of us will behave in contradictory ways and act both morally and immorally from time to time. Interestingly, when we think about our past moral actions, we are likely to engage in compensatory behaviour and act immorally going forward.</p>
<p>For instance, if you recently donated to charity, you may donate less money at a future charity event or be less willing to volunteer. This has been termed <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167212442394">moral licensing</a>, and describes how previous engagement in moral behaviour provides people with moral “credits” that then affords them with a ticket to subsequently engage in morally questionable behaviour. </p>
<p>The consequences of this can be quite serious, and happens even when people are merely anticipating future engagement. One study showed that people who expected to engage in some future moral action, such as in a fundraiser or donating blood, were <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103114001450">more likely to pick a white candidate</a> over a black candidate as being suitable for a job. </p>
<p>Moral licensing has also attracted attention in the area of <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-corporate-social-responsibility-and-does-it-work-89710">corporate social responsibility</a>. This term can broadly be thought of as an organisation’s focus beyond the bottom line – how it acts towards its stakeholders, the environment, and society. For example, Kenneth Lay, the former CEO of Enron – a company <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/28/how-to-get-away-with-financial-fraud">notoriously known for its accounting fraud</a> which ultimately led to its collapse in 2001 – was <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1523153/Kenneth-Lay.html">noted to be a keen philanthropist</a>. It may well be that he felt that his philanthropic efforts provided him with moral credits, allowing him to subsequently endorse the negative goings on within the company.</p>
<p>This view is in fact reinforced by research. One study that looked at moral licensing within the organisational context showed that prior corporate social responsibility of CEOs was <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/peps.12029/full">linked to more corporate social irresponsibility</a> later. Interest in moral licensing has even extended to areas such as energy conservation. One study showed that residents <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513000281">reduced their water consumption</a> when exposed to a water conservation programme. However, at the same time their electrical consumption was shown to have increased in comparison to a control group.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167215/original/file-20170428-12984-j1ouhn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Previous organisational CSR has been linked to subsequent social irresponsibility.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">David D'Amico/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Currently we are not sure <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x/full">what the psychological processes</a> underpinning moral licensing are. Does prior moral behaviour really provide credits that can be withdrawn to allow engagement in a questionable act – because we feel we have “earned” the right to do so? Or could it be that prior moral behaviour changes the meaning of the subsequent questionable behaviour? For instance, if we have established through previous actions that we are not racially biased, we may more easily convince ourselves that picking a white candidate over a black candidate was due to some factor other than race. </p>
<p>But are others willing to accept our moral license? One study looked at the reactions of individuals to a white speaker who made a potentially offensive comment directed at African Americans. When this comment was preceded by “I’m not racist or anything, but …”, the white people rated the speaker as <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x/full">slightly less racist</a>, while the black people judged the speaker as more racist. And so, where the targeted group was concerned, they were less likely to license the speaker – causing the speaker’s initial claim of not being racist to backfire. </p>
<h2>Moral cleansing</h2>
<p>The opposite to moral licensing is also true. We know that when people recall their recent immoral behaviour, they express greater willingness to engage in compensatory moral actions. This is referred to as <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167211400208">moral cleansing</a> – demonstrating the dynamic nature of moral behaviour.</p>
<p>For instance, Donald Trump’s quick decision in April 2017 to launch a missile strike in Syria in response to a chemical attack by the Syrian regime, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39529605">drew praise from his critics</a> as being “the right thing to do”. However, as Hillary Clinton <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/07/politics/clinton-trump-syria-refugees/index.html">pointed out</a>, “we cannot in one breath speak of protecting Syrian babies and in the next close American doors to them” – referring to a ban on receiving refugees. </p>
<p>It could well be argued that Trump’s morally questionable previous behaviour motivated him to engage in “moral cleansing” by launching the applauded missile strike. But the example clearly shows that while this may have assured him about his own morality, it takes more consistency to be accepted as moral by others.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167216/original/file-20170428-12970-ecags.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Trump received praise for his response to a chemical attack in Syria – but didn’t want to receive refugees to the US.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gage Skidmore/ Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that moral licensing seems to be apparent only for <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/2014/00000042/00000003/art00004">private transgressions</a>, such as donating to charity privately as opposed to doing so publicly. It seems as individuals, we seek to protect, and in some cases even bolster our reputation through public displays of moral actions. And engaging in morally questionable behaviour that we ourselves feel we have earned isn’t something we want to broadcast. Indeed, research has evidenced that those people who are publicly charitable <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513809000695">do benefit from reputational enhancement</a>. </p>
<p>Being good isn’t always easy. When it comes to behaving morally, it appears there is a balance we all strive to achieve, so that personally we can remain assured of our own moral goodness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76813/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nishat Babu does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Think you are a moral person? Research shows that we are often prone to act immorally when we think we’re moral.Nishat Babu, Lecturer in Work & Organisational Psychology, Aston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/927062018-03-29T10:27:12Z2018-03-29T10:27:12ZHow to stay honest this tax season<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212479/original/file-20180328-109179-1bblcmd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Each year many people cheat on their taxes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pictures-of-money/16687016624">Pictures of Money</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Americans begrudgingly work through their taxes this year, many could be facing a moral struggle about whether to be honest or not. They might be thinking about exaggerating that donation to Goodwill, or not reporting that side job, among other things.</p>
<p>It is true that each year many people do cheat on their taxes. According to <a href="http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/tax-evasion-cost/">findings</a> released by the IRS in 2016, tax evasion costs the federal government over US$450 billion each year.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=io5Ihu4AAAAJ&hl=en">philosopher</a> whose <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-character-gap-9780190264222?cc=us&lang=en&">research</a> focuses on character and ethics, I can say that there isn’t much controversy that cheating, in most situations, is morally wrong – and that includes cheating on one’s taxes. </p>
<p>So, how can we stay honest this tax season? </p>
<h2>We want to consider ourselves honest people</h2>
<p>First let’s dive into the recent psychological research on cheating.</p>
<p>Researcher <a href="https://www.london.edu/faculty-and-research/faculty/profiles/s/shu-l-1#.WrucVdXwZ-U">Lisa Shu</a> and her colleagues published a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21307176">study</a> in 2011 in which participants were given a test with 20 problems for which they would be paid $0.50 per correct answer. Their answers were checked by a person in charge, and they were paid accordingly. </p>
<p>This part of the experiment was pretty straightforward.</p>
<p>But then they changed the setup a bit. The participants were told that they would be the ones grading their answers with no one checking on them. The incentive and the test remained the same. They were also told that their paperwork would be shredded and they could report their own “scores.” </p>
<p>Here’s the difference it made in what people ended up doing: In the first setup where there was no opportunity to cheat, participants averaged about eight correct answers. In the second setup where there was ample opportunity to cheat, the number of “correct” answers jumped all the way to 13.22.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212480/original/file-20180328-109169-uicoi0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers have found that moral reminders can stop people from cheating.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cheat-sheet-written-hand-schoolboy-student-417465649?src=qiy3z0sIcXMYVYZ0kLrFSQ-1-13">Roman Pelesh/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This finding and other published results like them, provide an important lesson about the <a href="http://danariely.com/books/the-honest-truth-about-dishonesty/">psychology of cheating</a>: When people think they can get away with cheating, and they also think it would be worthwhile to cheat, they are often motivated to do so. </p>
<p>But that is not all the research has to offer. Using the same basic framework as Shu’s study, other research has added some interesting variations. For instance, participants in another study were first <a href="http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633?code=amma-site">asked to recall</a> as many of the Ten Commandments as they could before they took the test. In another variation, the participants were college students who first had to <a href="http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633?code=amma-site">sign their school’s honor code</a> before they began.</p>
<p>Researchers found the average number of problems solved was essentially the same as when participants had no opportunity to cheat and their answers were graded by someone else.</p>
<p>Psychologists have <a href="http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633?code=amma-site">provided an explanation</a> for what is happening here. While people often want to cheat in certain cases if it would benefit them, they also want to think of themselves as honest. What the honor code and the Ten Commandments did in the experiments was to serve as moral reminders of the importance of being honest. </p>
<p>Other studies of cheating have found that even more subtle reminders can be effective. In one such study, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23127418">cheating continued</a> even when the instructions said, “Please don’t cheat. … Even a small amount of cheating would undermine the study.” However, when researchers changed the wording for a second group, people did not cheat. This group was told: “Please don’t be a cheater. … Even a small number of cheaters would undermine the study.” </p>
<p>The switch to “cheater” called to mind how the participants wanted to think of themselves as honest. Most fascinating of all, psychologists stopped study participants from cheating simply by having them <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009265667690088X">sit in front of a mirror</a>.</p>
<p>When given a moral reminder, it is hard for most people to cheat.</p>
<h2>What can you do to stay honest</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/212482/original/file-20180328-109175-13k0b1s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How can you stay honest?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-businessman-partner-using-calculator-laptop-641524333?src=fwN5UMw5iT4Ax94pLJBtCg-1-12">Natee Meepian/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Coming back to the tax season, the question is how we can stay honest. Based on the research mentioned here, I want to suggest three practical steps:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Use tangible moral reminders. They can be as simple as a Post-it note on your computer to be honest. One could also read a passage from a religious text or a different source of moral inspiration.</p></li>
<li><p>If possible, do your taxes with someone else that you trust. With that accountability, it is a lot harder to give into temptation to cheat. We want to think of ourselves as honest, and we also want other people to think of us as honest too.</p></li>
<li><p>Call upon role models. Try to imagine what your moral heroes in life would tell you to do if you are considering bending the truth to lessen your tax burden. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>We shouldn’t cheat on our taxes, not because we necessarily care about the IRS, but because we care about being people of honesty and integrity. </p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This piece is part of our series on ethical questions arising from everyday life. We would welcome your suggestions. Please email us at <a href="mailto:ethical.questions@theconversation.com">ethical.questions@theconversation.com</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92706/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christian B. Miller receives funding from the Templeton Religion Trust. </span></em></p>While people often want to cheat in certain cases if it would benefit them, they also want to think of themselves as honest. Here are three steps to stay honest while filing taxes.Christian B. Miller, A.C. Reid Professor of Philosophy, Wake Forest UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/900902018-01-23T19:10:40Z2018-01-23T19:10:40ZThe moral value of wilderness<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/202957/original/file-20180123-182965-1o1ivfp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pause and reflect on what really makes wilderness valuable.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">John O'Neill/Wikimedia Commons</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Let us imagine that humanity has almost died out and only a few people remain. Out of resentment or despair, the survivors cater to their destructive urges by destroying as much of the natural world as they can. They poison rivers and lakes, drop napalm on forests, set off a few nuclear warheads. They are at ease with their conscience because no one will ever be in the position to use or appreciate the nature they are destroying. </p>
<p>They are harming no one. But surely what they are doing is wrong. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-wilderness-and-why-it-matters-36591">Explainer: wilderness, and why it matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian environmental philosopher <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/australian-philosophers-richard-sylvan-and-val-plumwood/5398044">Richard Sylvan</a> used this story to try to persuade us that nature has a value that is independent of our needs and desires, even our existence. </p>
<p>The predicament he imagines is a fiction. But the ethical problem is very real. Experts tell us that human activity is causing the world’s wilderness areas to <a href="https://theconversation.com/earths-wildernesses-are-disappearing-and-not-enough-of-them-are-world-heritage-listed-80325">disappear at an alarming rate</a>. In 100 years there <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/wilderness-wild-land-disappear-amazon-sahara-anthropocene-endangered-animals-a7232311.html">may be no wilderness left</a>. </p>
<p>Those who deplore this development usually focus on the negative implications for human well-being: increasing environmental dysfunction, loss of species diversity and of the unknown benefits that wilderness areas might contain. </p>
<p>But Sylvan’s thought experiment – involving the last people alive, and therefore removing the consideration of humans’ future well-being – shows us that much more is at stake. It is morally wrong to destroy ecosystems because they have value in their own right.</p>
<h2>Questions of value</h2>
<p>Some philosophers deny that something can have value if no one is around to value it. They think that ethical values exist only in our minds. Like most philosophical propositions, this position is debatable. Sylvan and many others believe that value is as much a part of the world as matter and energy. </p>
<p>But let us assume that those who deny the independent existence of values are right. How then can we condemn the destructive activities of the last people or deplore the loss of wilderness and species for any other reason than loss of something useful to humans? </p>
<p>The kind of experiences that something provides can be a reason for regarding it as valuable for what it is, and not merely for its utility. Those who appreciate wilderness areas are inclined to believe that they have this <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-wilderness-and-why-it-matters-36591">kind of value</a>. Henry David Thoreau <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/205/205-h/205-h.htm">wrote in Walden</a>: “We need to witness our own limits transgressed, and some life posturing freely where we never wander.”</p>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef “is the closest most people will come to Eden”, <a href="http://verityla.com/change-and-damage-beyond-belief-judith-wrights-the-coral-battleground/">said the poet Judith Wright</a>, who helped to lead a protest movement in the 1960s and 1970s against the plans of the Bjelke-Petersen Queensland government to drill for oil on the reef.</p>
<p>Thoreau and Wright value wilderness not merely because it the source of enjoyment and recreational pleasure, but also because it can teach us something profound – either through its astonishing beauty or by putting our own human lives in perspective. In this way, wild nature is valuable for much the same reasons that many people value great works of art.</p>
<p>If the last people had set about destroying all the artworks in all the great museums of the world, we would call them vandals. Objects of great spiritual or aesthetic value deserve respect and should be treated accordingly. To destroy them is wrong, regardless of whether anyone will be here to appreciate them in the future. </p>
<h2>Like nowhere else on Earth</h2>
<p>Wright and her fellow protesters aimed to make Australians realise that they possessed something remarkable that existed nowhere else on the face of the planet. They wanted Australians to recognise the Great Barrier Reef as a national treasure. They were successful. It was given World Heritage status in 1981 and was listed as national heritage in 2007. </p>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef is also recognised as the <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/heritage">heritage</a> of more than 70 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups. Much of what Westerners think of as wilderness is in fact the ancestral territory of indigenous people – the land that they have cared for and treasured for many generations.</p>
<p>Recognising a wilderness area as heritage gives us another reason for thinking that its value transcends utility.</p>
<p>Heritage consists of objects, practices and sites that connect people with a past that is significant to them because of what their predecessors did, suffered or valued. Our heritage helps to define us as a community. To identify something as heritage is to accept a responsibility to protect it and to pass it on to further generations. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/earths-wildernesses-are-disappearing-and-not-enough-of-them-are-world-heritage-listed-80325">Earth's wildernesses are disappearing, and not enough of them are World Heritage-listed</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We have many reasons to recognise wilderness areas like the Great Barrier Reef as heritage. They are special and unique. They play a role in a history of how people learned to understand and appreciate their land. They provide a link between the culture of Aboriginal people – their attachment to their land – and the increasing willingness of non-Aboriginal Australians to value their beauty and irreplaceability. </p>
<p>The last people cannot pass on their heritage to future generations. But valuing something as heritage makes it an object of concern and respect. If people cherish and feel connected to wild environments and the creatures that live in them, they should want them to thrive long after we are gone.</p>
<p>We, who do not share the predicament of the last people, have a duty to pass on our heritage to future generations. This gives us an even stronger moral reason to ensure the survival of our remaining wilderness areas.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Janna Thompson is affiliated with the Green Party as a volunteer</span></em></p>Imagine being one of the last few people alive. Would that make it ok to destroy the natural world? This thought experiment reveals the true value of nature, beyond the benefits to humans.Janna Thompson, Professor of Philosophy, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/879602017-12-22T13:24:29Z2017-12-22T13:24:29ZHow to teach children morals<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200168/original/file-20171220-4973-s9hz7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">shutterstock</span> </figcaption></figure><p>Schools in England are legally required to <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/32/section/78">promote the moral development of pupils</a>. Unfortunately though, there is little agreement on what this involves. Most people recognise that morality is important and needs to be taught – but when it comes to saying what it is and how to teach it, the consensus soon breaks down.</p>
<p>The past few years have seen some major developments in the area of “values education”. In 2014 the government issued guidance to schools on promoting the “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/promoting-fundamental-british-values-through-smsc">fundamental British values</a>” of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance. And since 2015 it has invested around £10m in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-boost-for-schools-helping-pupils-develop-character">grants to support character education projects</a>, aimed at helping children to be “<a href="https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/dc21eb47-506f-4094-8f6d-696c5224d372">well-rounded, confident, happy and resilient</a>”. </p>
<p>But, whatever the merits of these initiatives, they have little to do with the teaching of morality. Indeed, one reason for the general confusion about moral education is that moral values have not been clearly distinguished from values of other kinds. </p>
<p>Someone who fails to value democracy certainly gets something wrong, but the failing is not a moral one. And the character traits the government champions – grit, resilience, confidence, ambition – are no doubt necessary for survival in unforgiving economic times, but they are hardly requirements of morality.</p>
<h2>What are moral values?</h2>
<p>In <a href="https://www.routledge.com/A-Theory-of-Moral-Education/Hand/p/book/9781138898547">my new book</a> I argue that to have a moral value is to subscribe to a standard in a particular way. A standard is a rule specifying something to be done or not done. Subscribing to a standard involves intending to comply with it, being in the habit of complying with it, and feeling bad about failing to comply with it. </p>
<p>A person subscribes to the standard “do not lie”, for example, when they try not to lie, tend not to lie, and regret the lies they tell.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200166/original/file-20171220-4980-o592x1.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Schools should play a role in passing on common morality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/adolescent-adult-beauty-blur-459971/">Pexels</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Subscribing to a standard counts as moral when it has two further features. First, the subscriber not only tries to comply with the standard themselves, but wants everyone else to comply with it too. Second, they see violations of the standard as deserving of punishment or condemnation.</p>
<p>The stability of human social groups depends on people subscribing to at least some standards in this way. At the very least, people must be committed to not killing or causing harm, stealing or extorting, lying or cheating, and to treating others fairly, keeping their promises and helping those in need. These standards make up the core of common morality.</p>
<h2>How to teach them</h2>
<p>Schools have a role to play in passing on common morality to the next generation. To do this, they must provide two kinds of moral education.</p>
<p>The first is “moral formation” – cultivating in children the intentions, feelings and habits of moral subscription. This involves giving children moral guidance, rewarding them for doing right and punishing them for doing wrong, as well as modelling good conduct and modelling appropriate reactions to the conduct of others.</p>
<p>From the experience of having their behaviour regulated, children learn to self-regulate. And by emulating the moral reactions of others, children learn to react in those ways themselves.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/200170/original/file-20171220-4954-1d8a0m8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children must develop moral intentions, feelings and habits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second kind of moral education is “moral inquiry” – engaging children in discussion and reflection on the nature and justification of moral values. Teachers must ensure, by explicit intervention or gentle steering, that moral inquiry brings to light the justification for common morality. It is vital that children come to understand what morality is for and why it demands the things it does.</p>
<p>Of course, alongside the task of passing on common morality, schools must also help children to pick their way through the minefields of moral controversy. Many moral standards are fiercely contested and it is not for schools to decide whether or not they are justified. Here moral inquiry should take the form of open-ended exploration, with the aim of equipping children to form their own considered views.</p>
<p>Promoting the moral development of pupils is difficult, but the challenges it poses are not insurmountable. Ensuring children subscribe to common morality, and understand the reasons for it, is a task schools must not shrink from – society depends on it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87960/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Hand does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Schools have a duty to teach children morality, but which moral values should they teach?Michael Hand, Professor of Philosophy of Education, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/870142017-11-26T19:10:35Z2017-11-26T19:10:35ZWe need robots that can improvise, but it’s not easy to teach them right from wrong<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/196086/original/file-20171123-18017-sha2ml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One day we could have an intelligent robot cook up surprise meals at home.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Besjunior/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Industrial robots have existed since the 1960s, when <a href="https://www.robotics.org/joseph-engelberger/unimate.cfm">the first Unimate robotic arm</a> was installed at a General Motors plant in the United States. Nearly six decades on, why don’t we have capable robots in our homes, beyond a few <a href="https://www.digitaltrends.com/home/robots-that-do-chores/">simple domestic gadgets</a>?</p>
<p>One of the reasons is that the rules and conventions that govern our everyday lives are not as perfect as the rules that govern the process of, say, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErSZmor1qok">assembling a car</a>.</p>
<p>Our everyday rules do not cover all possible scenarios. This makes them filled with inconsistencies that will render useless any robot that strictly follows them. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-technology-take-your-job-new-analysis-says-more-of-us-are-safer-than-we-thought-but-not-all-86219">Will technology take your job? New analysis says more of us are safer than we thought, but not all</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For robots to play a more involved role in our lives, such as personal caregivers or reliable <a href="https://interestingengineering.com/robot-chefs-could-take-over-our-kitchens-very-soon">home cooks and chefs</a>, they will have to move away from following the simple rule-based operating procedures used by current robots.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/9lOOhdx-YfQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Will this robot chef ever compare with real chefs?</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Let’s improvise</h2>
<p>One potential solution is to build robots in a way that when they face a tricky situation, they can improvise. </p>
<p>They would do this by using their past experiences from training, combined with some context of their current situation. This approach will most likely lead to them making very complex decisions. </p>
<p>But there is no guarantee that the robot will choose an action that follows the social norms. These actions may appear to us humans as cheating and sometimes rude or even unfair.</p>
<p>So how are we going to teach a robot to act in a courteous, ethical and honourable way? Is this even a reasonable expectation?</p>
<h2>Can robots improvise?</h2>
<p>Consider your washing machine. One morning you are late, and in a hurry you put your clothes into the machine and pick the wrong washing program. A machine that simply follows the programmed rules will happily run and potentially ruin your favourite clothes. How annoying.</p>
<p>For an artificial intelligence (AI) powered washing machine to avoid this situation, it would have to go through a complex decision process to improvise. The machine might use its cameras to detect the brands of the clothes you’re putting in the machine and then look them up online to find out the best washing program.</p>
<p>But you were in a hurry and you mixed multiple types of fabric together. This means that one washing program will be fine for some clothes but completely ruin others. A simple AI might decide to pause the machine and message you to ask for your decision.</p>
<p>Ah, but because you were in a hurry, you have left your phone behind. And the AI knows you need that washing done today so again, it must improvise.</p>
<h2>Decision time</h2>
<p>The next level of decision is for the AI to decide which of your clothes is the most sentimental to you, and save it. This is a much more complex process. </p>
<p>The AI now has to go through years of your recorded history to detect significant moments in your life and check if you were wearing any of the clothes you mindlessly put in the machine. But what is a significant moment and how can an AI detect it? </p>
<p>The AI-powered washing machine has now decided which washing program to run. It is for your heavily dirty white cotton t-shirt from your first year in college. It is using hot water and a long rinse.</p>
<p>This improvised decision may have ruined some of the other clothing but it resulted in you having your favourite t-shirt ready for you to wear that evening to a reunion with old friends (the AI had checked your diary).</p>
<h2>How likely is all of this?</h2>
<p>Robotics and AI researchers around the world are already demonstrating robots that can learn and improvise.</p>
<p>The robotic marimba player <a href="https://www.shimonrobot.com/">Shimon</a> has played in a jazz band since 2015 to packed music venues. It listens to the music of the human band members as they improvise, and joins in. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/undXeKxipCg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Humans and Shimon jazzing along.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Improvising musical robots are one thing, but cheating or deceitful robots are an altogether scarier idea. </p>
<p>In 2010 <a href="https://newatlas.com/robots-taught-deception/16324/">researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology</a> demonstrated how one robot could deceive another robot by exploiting its vulnerabilities. The experiments involved the robots playing hide-and-seek. One robot would pretend it was in one location while secretly hiding in another.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KI9__hLgnZk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Hide-and-seek, robot style.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The benefits of enabling robots and AI to cheat are studied as part of research in Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). Some of the results reported so far reveal that a <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5928688/">cheating robot has more human-like attributes</a>, that lead to a <a href="http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5453193/">more natural interaction</a> between it and the people with whom it interacts.</p>
<h2>The philosophical debate</h2>
<p>This topic of machine morality is deep and complex with no straightforward answers but it’s a recipe for a debate that emerges from the philosophy of morality.</p>
<p>This debate began with the science fiction literature from the mid-20th century – specifically Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics introduced in his 1942 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20983119-runaround">short story Runaround</a>. As robots and AI become more capable, this debate is becoming central to our lives. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-ai-professor-explains-three-concerns-about-granting-citizenship-to-robot-sophia-86479">An AI professor explains: three concerns about granting citizenship to robot Sophia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Philosophical thinkers have already been asking questions about <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/The_Challenge_of_Moral_Machines">the challenge of moral machines</a> and <a href="https://philosophynow.org/issues/72/Machines_and_Moral_Reasoning">machines and moral reasoning</a> with a message to the HRI community that we should:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[…] be careful what one wishes for … it may come true. Therefore, we should be very careful about what abilities we program into computers, and what responsibilities we assign to them. In the end, if the machines are coming, it is humans who are constructing them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We are still asking questions today about the morality of machines, and whether we can <a href="https://www.1843magazine.com/features/teaching-robots-right-from-wrong">teach AI and robots to understand about right and wrong</a>. </p>
<p>We have a long way to go before we can build sophisticated robots with a moral compass. </p>
<p>The ongoing debate on the issue will not only help us build better robots but it will also make us reflect on our own ethical practices, hopefully leading us towards a better humanity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87014/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Roberts is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Professor Michael Milford is a Chief Investigator at the Australian Centre for Robotic Vision, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, Microsoft Research Faculty Fellow and Founding Director of the education startup Math Thrills Pty Ltd. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, Caterpillar Corporation, Mining3, Microsoft, the Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development and AMP.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Feras Dayoub does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Robots have already learned to cheat when playing games. How do we teach them morals if we want them more involved in our everyday lives?Feras Dayoub, Research Fellow with the Australian centre for robotic vision, Queensland University of TechnologyJonathan Roberts, Professor in Robotics, Queensland University of TechnologyMichael Milford, Professor, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.