Morality Rebooted: Exploring Simple Fixes to Our Moral Bugs

Ting  Zhang; Francesca  Gino; Max   Bazerman

Article | Research in Organizational Behavior | 2014

Morality Rebooted: Exploring Simple Fixes to Our Moral Bugs

by Ting Zhang, Francesca Gino and Max Bazerman

Abstract

Ethics research developed partly in response to calls from organizations to understand and solve unethical behavior. Departing from prior work that focused mainly on examining the antecedents and consequences of dishonesty, we examine two approaches to mitigating unethical behavior: (1) values-oriented approaches that broadly appeal to individuals' preferences to be more moral, and (2) structure-oriented approaches that redesign specific incentives, tasks, and decisions to reduce temptations to cheat in the environment. This paper explores how these approaches can change behavior. We argue that integrating both approaches while avoiding incompatible strategies can mitigate the risk of adverse effects that arise from taking a single approach.

Keywords: corruption; dishonesty; Unethical Behavior; interventions; structure; values; Behavior; Ethics; Moral Sensibility;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Zhang, Ting, Francesca Gino, and Max Bazerman. "Morality Rebooted: Exploring Simple Fixes to Our Moral Bugs." Research in Organizational Behavior 34 (2014): 63–79.

Working Paper | 2019

Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good

Karen Huang, Joshua D. Greene and Max Bazerman

The “veil of ignorance” is a moral reasoning device designed to promote impartial decision-making by denying decision-makers access to potentially biasing information about who will benefit most or least from the available options. Veil-of-ignorance reasoning was originally applied by philosophers and economists to foundational questions concerning the overall organization of society. Here we apply veil-of-ignorance reasoning in a more focused way to specific moral dilemmas, all of which involve a tension between the greater good and competing moral concerns. Across six experiments (N = 5,785), three pre-registered, we find that veil-of-ignorance reasoning favors the greater good. Participants first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning about a specific dilemma, asking themselves what they would want if they did not know who among those affected they would be. Participants then responded to a more conventional version of the same dilemma with a moral judgment, a policy preference, or an economic choice. Participants who first engaged in veil-of-ignorance reasoning subsequently made more utilitarian choices in response to a classic philosophical dilemma, a medical dilemma, a real donation decision between a more vs. less effective charity, and a policy decision concerning the social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. These effects depend on the impartial thinking induced by veil-of-ignorance reasoning and cannot be explained by a simple anchoring account, probabilistic reasoning, or generic perspective-taking. These studies indicate that veil-of-ignorance reasoning may be a useful tool for decision-makers who wish to make more impartial and/or socially beneficial choices.

Keywords: policy-making; procedural justice; Ethics; Decision Making; Fairness;

Citation:

Huang, Karen, Joshua D. Greene, and Max Bazerman. "Veil-of-Ignorance Reasoning Favors the Greater Good." Working Paper, July 2019. View Details

Cite View Details Read Now

Faculty & Research

Morality Rebooted: Exploring Simple Fixes to Our Moral Bugs

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors