Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Moral and Ethical Deception...contradiction or synonymous?


Ethics? Morals? What is right and what is wrong? What is an act of good and what constitutes an act of bad? These questions and others similar to them, are completely subjective and not in the slightest, tangible.  Religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism have created texts like The Bible, The Qur’an, and The Tipitaka packed full of narratives, fables, metaphors,  myths, analogies, similes,  and other imagery in order to teach people what is the ‘proper way of living’. There are no universal laws on what is considered ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; well besides the “Golden Rule” of course. A strong argument could be made that ethics and morals are performed as well as judged on an individual and case by case basis. Deception is an action that falls under much scrutiny in ethical and moral realms. “Whereas deception is typically frowned upon, research shows that people typically lie on a daily basis and deception is part of everyday life” (Scholl & O’Hair, 2005, pg. 377).

Deception occurring on a “daily basis” is unsettling and an uncomfortable thing to hear. Nobody wants to live a life of zero trust and questioning of everything we hear in our daily communications. As I mentioned in an earlier blog on the subject, “communication is founded on the presumption of truth” (Goffman, 1959).  If we assume and presume that, until otherwise detected, the things we hear from friends, family, co-workers, and our significant other(s) are of the truth, then these relationships can remain healthy and not full of doubt, cynicism, and suspicion. However, we as listeners and receivers of information have relatively no control over what is said to us and how it is presented. This task is performed by the sender and that puts the transmitter of information in a position of power; power over the control of said information. But, like Stan Lee, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and originally Voltaire stated, “With great power, comes great responsibility”. The responsibility in the case of deception is related to the personal ethics and morals being analyzed, strategized, and employed by the potential deceiver.

Ethics and morals have been studied and examined since man began to walk upright and form language. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a German philosopher that wrote about ethical decisions and there application in humanity.  He argued that it is was personal and individual responsibility for a person to reason through moral dilemmas and this must be done with a strong sense of ethical autonomy (free-will or capacity to act on one’s own behalf and make one’s own decisions). Kant was a firm believer in deontological ethics or, the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules (Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals).  Individual ethics are autonomous because “[ethical decision making] cannot be ethical if it is biased by self-interest, profit, greed, arrogance, or like reason that would promote personal advantage” (Bowen, 2006, pg. 335). It looks the only way ethical autonomy could apply to the act of deception would be in the ‘lies to protect’ category. Deceiving one’s romantic partner in Tim Cole’s (2001) three main categories of romantic deception; reciprocity, avoiding punishment, and intimacy needs, would not count as autonomous ethical decisions because they are driven by self-interests.

Ethics, are one of five factors conceived by Juliann C. Sholl and Dan O’Hair (2005), that play a part in the use of deception (the others are upbringing, acceptance, motives and intentionality). The two authors claim “deception is an emotionally charged issue fueled by debates over when it is right or wrong “(pg. 380). The question of when using deception is ok or not, good or bad, right or wrong may be answered with a Utilitarian perspective. This standpoint holds that, “when we have a choice among actions, we should pursue the action that promotes the best possible consequences for everyone involved” (pg. 381). In romantic relationships the utilitarian notions of lies may be in order to protect feelings, privacy, or even relational satisfaction. Deception that is performed to facilitate the best potential outcomes for all parties involved is certainly a moral and ethical dilemma because the person evaluating the potential deception must personally make the decisions on what is ‘right’ for everyone. 

It seems impossible to separate deception and ethics. Deception is a social ambiguous term and act because it is essentially an autonomous decision making process left up to the person in evaluation of it. People decide to deceive one another based on many factors but the execution of the act and its relevance to right and wrong are completely at the mercy of the deceiver. We all have, or hopefully all of us, have a pit in the bottom of our stomachs that is related to our conscious, that signals to us when we may be doing something that goes against our personal moral code. We as individuals involved in communication must pay close attention to those feelings in order to come to individual decisions of what is right and wrong to us. We have to decide when it may not only be appropriate but even warranted to perform deception. If when we lay our heads on our pillows to rest at night and that pit in our stomach keeps us awake with guilty feelings, then maybe we should find a way fix it through the disclosure of truths. Remember the truth has no need for justification.           

References:

Bowen, S.A. (2006). Autonomy in communication: Inclusion in strategic management and ethical decision-making, a comparative case analysis. Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10, No.4. pp. 330-352.

Kant, I. (1964). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, HJ. Paton. (Trans), Harper & Row Publishing, New York, NY, (originally published 1785).

Scholl, J.C., O’Hair, D. (2005). Uncovering beliefs about deceptive communication. Communication Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3. pp. 377-399.

Cole, T. (2001). Lying to the one you love: The use of deception in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 18. pp. 107-129.

9 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the statement in your blog that really drew me in was the Utilitarian perspective “when we have a choice among actions, we should pursue the action that promotes the best possible consequences for everyone involved.” I just automatically want to agree whole-heartedly with that statement because it seems like it would be the best possible course of action. Then I started thinking about various situations and I guess what I want to know is, consequences aside, what about doing “the right thing?” Where does that come into play in this statement, or is it saying that you should assume that the “right” thing IS what has the best consequences for everyone involved? I hope that makes sense.

    I agree with you that “deception occurring on a daily basis is unsettling and uncomfortable.” I think that the amount of deception you are able to put up with from any one individual depends on your relationship with them. It’s interesting to think about in the context of different relationships. If my parents were to lie about something, I probably wouldn’t care—I’m used to them being secretive or slanting what they tell me. If one of my friends were to lie, I would be upset—as far as I know we are quite open and honest about things. As a person who *thinks* she values knowing the truth about things, I am really having a good time thinking about that Utilitarian statement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Polotto,

      Let me begin by saying that this is my favorite post that you have written so far. Not only do I think the quality of your writing is superior to previous posts, the subject is also incredibly interesting to me as well. You speak of religion, morality, philosophy, ethics, Kant, and Voltaire. These people and things aren’t just up my alley, they ARE my alley. :)

      The questions you ask at the beginning of your blog about what is good and bad, right and wrong, have been debated and struggled with throughout recorded history, as you allude to. Catholic morality has an interesting answer to these questions. It uses a “sliding scale” of good and bad. So, for example, lying would always be “bad,” but lying to protect would be on one end of the scale and considered much less bad than lying to manipulate someone into taking all of their money. Then there is the completely separate concept of sin. In order for something to be a sin, one has to be aware that it is a sin when they commit the act and do it anyway. Very interesting take on a complicated set of questions, I think.

      By the way, who lied to you Mike? :) You seem to have a very strong reaction to deception, and I would guess that most of us do. I was certainly that way until very recently. I no longer have a negative view of deception. Wait, that’s a lie. Wait, THAT's a lie. While I hold myself to a standard of expressing myself in the most honest and becoming way I know how, I don’t expect other people to be honest all of the time and I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing for people to be dishonest. I think we should be aware of deception, so I appreciate you discussing it in your work this semester.

      I think it’s a waste of effort not to accept the reality of deception. However, over the long term, if someone is usually honest with you, you can decide to trust them based on an actual track record of truth. That doesn’t mean they can’t deceive you later, but I think not giving away complete trust automatically and then allowing yourself to trust people more once they have shown you their personal deception patterns is reasonable. When you talk about power dynamics in deception, did the studies you looked at mention anything about long-term relationships? For example, if I am lying to you to try to get you to buy a car, I may have an advantage. But if I will be working with you at a company for a long time and I deceive you, don’t you have some power there too as the receiver of information? Doesn’t relative power depend on the situation and context over time?

      You also mention the “pit” at the bottom of our stomachs. It seems to me that this “pit” is trained to feel badly based on our experience and what some refer to as a “conscience.” One of the reasons we have religions, ethics courses, and academic research is to inform our consciences so we get that “pit” at appropriate times. Would you agree that your conscience creates physical sensations that allow you to feel what is right and that we can inform how this system reacts to different events over time? Did the literature say anything about that? And how do we go about “developing our personal moral code” as you discuss, or is it just hardwired into us?

      It was a pleasure reading your post this week and reflecting a little bit more on the broader concepts involved in deception. No bull or deception here. Thanks Polotto!

      Delete
  4. The utilitarian notion is sort of like a communist slant on decision making, it doesn't really allow for exception. I think the 'right thing' can often fit into the idea of exception. The 'right thing' is completely subjective and up for interpretation just about always. It could mean the right thing to the individual and therefore would not be of a utilitarian perspective. A person might think to themselves before they cheat, "this is what I need, it will help my relationship to have this release", this might have them thinking they are doing the right thing for all parties involved. Are they? Haha I would say no, but the 'right thing' is so subjective my opinion is irrelevant. I would say utilitarianism would take more research and democratic conversation with overs before a decision is made. The 'right thing' could be an instantaneous decision.

    Coming to terms with the daily deception aspect is easy if you just don't believe anything unless you have previous knowledge of it or do future research on it, or it comes from someone younhave placed in the trust category or view as a moral expert.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Mike great blog! That is the hook for one my favorite Swahili rap songs where the artist asks what is wrong and what is right (Kipi Haram? Kipi Hilali?).
    Where I know that it is impossible to tell the truth all the time. I would still prefer this in theory. The whole world relies on truth. Imagine what would happen if we could no longer believe a company’s annual report? Or no longer believe a title to a property and much worse believe other people. The world would be in chaos. I feel that people who use the argument that deception can be used for the ‘greater good’ usually do not say that the ‘greater good’ benefits them tremendously.
    It is in rare cases (if ever) people use deception to anyone’s cause but their own. Tying in back to relationships, it is no different. For example the partner that lies to his/her spouse that they look great in an outfit would in their defense say something to the sound of: “I didn’t want to hurt their feelings”. The truth of the matter is that they did not want to deal with the consequences of saying that their partner looked horrible. This again is a selfish act as well.
    Awesome job with the blog very thought provoking!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim, thanks for the encouragement of my writing. By you telling me you enjoy and appreciate the authors I mentioned it signals to me you have great taste in "your alley", wait.....that sounds strange, but I think you get it. Your Catholic notion of being aware of a sin is what makes it a sin....if this is true, it would seem ignorance is an open window. What is a sin seems to be heavily defined by religion for many reason and interests. That's why the idea of ethical autonomy is so fascinating to me...this is the power of every individual to define what is a sin to themselves personally. We as people know what 'feels right or wrong' and that can often be our guiding light into decision making.

    Haha and no lied to me Jim, well after this semesters studies, EVERYONE lied to me apparently. But no one in particular lied to me which cause me to cynically seek out this research. I just thought it would be a fun, insightful, and interesting study. In had no idea it was so complex, and I hope this knowledge doesn't affect me negatively in interpersonal relationships in the future, but it very well may. Your trust notion of "track record of truth" is very important in evaluating message honesty and accuracy. That record may take years or even one conversation. The pit in our stomachs also relates to feelings and intuition of people we come accross and often times that pit is correct. Deception does have of course different contextual issues aligned with it over time but most of the research I looked at were of romantic relationships. These also have long-term ramifications of deception of a partner if deception is uncovered down the road but was in fact performed early in the relationship. The 'feeding' of our conscience is so true...our experiences and personal education, whether scholarly or interpersonal, have a major affect on what makes us feel guilty and what fuels the uneasy feelings in our stomach pit. We have to learn to listen to our conscience and make attempts at understanding what has affects on us, and what sort of affects our actions have on others. If something feels wrong...it most certainly probably is. I don't feel we are in inherant of feelings, emotions, and concience. We may have a few risk-taking genes passed down, and maybe a sympathy and nurturing gene as well. But out personal conscience in my opinion is based on our direct experiences. Thanks for the reply Jim...very insightful stuff

    Mwamba,

    The Swahili rapmsong sounds fantastic. I would like to hear it...maybe you can translate it for me? Your 'truth all the time' theory might be tough to swallow for some people. We might get our feelings hurt, but hey, then we could grow thick skin right? We certainly as humans must rely on trust for things like survival. If someone tells us that if we jump off a cliff we could die, then we must take their word for it and not feel the need to experience it for ourselves. The greater good lies are difficult to handle as well, because who is to say what is good for everyone or even most people. Positions of power are usually the ones making these decisions, and what kind of perspective are they in?

    Thanks for the comment...Kipi Harami Kipi Hilali foreverrrrrr

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great comments everybody. Mike, I wonder if the readings you did differentiated between ethics and morals. I worked with a communication ethics professor once in North Carolina (yes, there are such people) and she shared something with me that for some reason i found very profound. She said that morals are deciding between Right and Wrong (like religion can tell us) while ethics are deciding between Right and Right! If we believe lying is either right or wrong, then we are dealing in morals. If we believe it's Right to tell the truth AND it's right to, say, protect others' feelings, now we are dealing in ethics where, I suggest, the questions and answers get far more complex and interesting.

    ReplyDelete