Welcome to the Nexus of Ethics, Psychology, Morality, Philosophy and Health Care

Welcome to the nexus of ethics, psychology, morality, technology, health care, and philosophy

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Certain Age Groups May Encounter More Ethics Risk, Says New Report from the Ethics Resource Center

Ethics Resource Center
Press Release
Originally presented on June 24, 2013

Younger workers are more susceptible to experiencing ethical dilemmas on the job, the Ethics Resource Center (ERC) said today in “Generational Differences in Workplace Ethics,” a supplemental research report to their 2011 National Business Ethics Survey®.  The new report takes an in-depth look at how employees of different generational cohorts are shaping today’s workplace.

The report delves into trends among four specific generational groups- Millenials, Generation X (Gen X’ers), Boomers, and Traditionalists. Each generation, shaped by significant world events and cultural trends, exhibits distinct differences when it comes to ethics.  According to the study, certain age groups are more “at risk” than others when it comes to the four key measures of ethical performance- pressure to compromise standards, misconduct, reporting, and retaliation.  For instance, the report reveals that the younger the worker, the more likely they are to feel pressure, observe misconduct, and experience retaliation for reporting.

Major findings from the survey include:

  • Almost half of Millenials (49 percent) observed workplace misconduct
  • The youngest workers (29 percent) were significantly more likely to experience retaliation than Gen X’ers (21 percent) and Baby Boomers (18 percent)
  • After witnessing misconduct, over half of employees in every age group reported it to their supervisor first

“It is important for companies to realize that each generation perceives ethics and culture differently from the others,” said ERC’s President, Dr. Patricia J. Harned.  “However, business leaders should know they do not have to completely redesign their ethics and compliance programs.  Implementing an effective ethics and compliance program and building a strong ethics culture will continue to make a difference for all employees. The key is communicating their commitment to ethics differently for different generations.”

This study is the most recent in a series of surveys conducted by the ERC. The ERC has fielded a biennial National Business Ethics Survey (NBES®) since 1994, providing business leaders a snapshot of workplace ethics trends.  Throughout the years the NBES has been expanded into a series, making it possible to focus on specific areas of interest.

“Generational Differences” allows ERC to address challenges facing a workforce spanning multiple generations, and offers suggestions for business leaders on how to reach each generation.  This newest report was made possible in part by a generous contribution from Raytheon Company.

Download the entire supplemental report here.

Why politicians should have backgrounds in clinical psychology

By Alex Lickerman
KevinMD.com
Originally published May 14, 2013

Of all the different criteria people use when deciding for whom to vote in presidential elections, I’ve never heard anyone talk about the importance of a background in clinical psychology—but it’s always struck me as important for a president to have as for a clinical psychologist. Certainly, foreign policy experience, a firm grasp of the principles of economics, a bold and confident leadership style, and the ability to get people to work together are all critically important—but a moment of reflection is all it takes to realize that all of these abilities spring from an understanding of and ability to leverage the principles of human psychology.

Our scientific understanding of these principles has finally advanced far enough—and in many cases has been found to be counterintuitive enough—that, as wise as any one of us may be in our personal lives, compared to trained clinical and research psychologists, we’re all a bunch of amateurs. As a result of our politicians’ distinct lack of psychological expertise, we’ve experienced—and will continue to experience—a number of significant policy failures. Why? Because at its core, public policy achieves societal improvements by changing the behavior of its citizens. How can a policy be expected to achieve its purpose if it’s not then grounded in a correct understanding of human psychology?

The entire article is here.

Thanks for Ed Zuckerman for this blog.

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Mind and Morality

Published by Steven Novella
Neurologicablog
Originally published June 18, 2013

One of the themes of this blog, reflecting my skeptical philosophy, is that our brains construct reality – meaning that our perceptions, memories, internal model of reality, narrative of events, and emotions are all constructed artifacts of our neurological processing. This is, in my opinion, an undeniable fact revealed by neuroscience.

This realization, in turn, leads to neuropsychological humility – putting our perceptions, memories, thoughts, and feelings into a proper perspective. Thinking that you know what you saw, or you remember clearly, or that your “gut” feeling is a reliable moral compass, is nothing but naive arrogance.

Perhaps the most difficult aspect of constructed reality to fully accept is our morality. When we have a deep moral sense of what is right and wrong, we feel as if the universe dictates that it is so. Our moral senses feel objectively right to us. But this too is just an illusion, an evolved construction of our brains.

Before I go on, let me point out that this does not mean morality is completely relative. I discuss the issue here and here, and if you have lots of time on your hands you can wade through the hundreds of following comments.

The neurologically constructed nature of morality means that neuroscientists (including psychologists) can investigate how our morals are constructed, just like anything else the brain does. A recent series of experiments published in Psychological Sciences did just that.

The entire blog post is here.

Morality – Religion, Philosophy and Science

By Steven Novella
NeurologicaBlog
Originally published on January 7, 2013

What is the proper basis for morality? This question comes up frequently in skeptical circles for various reasons – it tests the limits of science, the role of philosophy, and is often used as a justification for religion. There has been a vibrant discussion of the issue, in fact, on my recent posts from last week. The comments seemed to contain more questions than anything else, however.

Religion and Morality

Often defenders of religion in general or of a particular set of religious beliefs will argue that religion is a source of morality. They may even argue that it is the only true source of morality, which then becomes defined as behavioral rules set down by God.

There are fatal problems with this position, however. The first is that there is no general agreement on whether or not there is a god or gods, and if there is what is the proper tradition of said god. There are scores of religions in the world, each with their own traditions. Of course, if god does not exist, any moral system based upon the commandments of god do not have a legitimate basis (at least not as absolute morality derived from an omniscient god).

(cut)

Conclusion

The best approach to morality and ethics, in my opinion, is a thoughtful blend of philosophy and science. I do not see a legitimate role for religion itself, however, cultural traditions (many of which may be codified in religious belief) are a useful source of information about the human condition and the effect of specific moral behaviors. There may be wisdom in such traditions – but that is the beginning of moral thinking, not the conclusion. Religious traditions also come with a great deal of baggage derived from the beliefs and views of fairly primitive and unenlightened societies.

The entire blog post is here.


Friday, July 5, 2013

Objective vs Subjective Morality

Published by Steven Novella
NeurologicaBlog
Originally published January 11, 2013

I am fascinated by the philosophy of ethics, ever since I took a course in it in undergraduate school. This is partly because I enjoy thinking about complex systems (which partly explains why I ended up in Neurology as my specialty). I also greatly enjoy logic, and particularly deconstructing arguments (my own and others) to identify their logical essence and see if or where they go wrong.

In a previous post I wrote about the philosophy of morality. This spawned over 400 comments (so far), so it seems we could use another post to reset the conversation.

The discussion is between objective vs subjective morality, mostly focusing around a proponent of objective morality (commenter nym of Zach). Here I will lay out my position for a philosophical basis of morality and explain why I think objective morality is not only unworkable, it’s a fiction.

First, let’s define “morality” and discuss why it is needed. Morality is a code of behavior that aspires to some goal that is perceived as good. The question at hand is where do morals and morality come from. I think this question is informed by the question of why we need morals in the first place.

I maintain that morals can only be understood in the context of the moral actor. Humans, for example, have emotions and feelings. We care about stuff, about our own well being, about those who love, about our “tribe.” We also have an evolved sense of morality, such as the concepts of reciprocity and justice.

Further, humans are social animals, and in fact we have no choice but to share this planet with each other. Our behavior, therefore, affects others. If we had no cares at all about what happens to us or others, or our actions had no affect on anything but ourselves, then there would be no need for morality, and in fact morality would have no meaning.

We can take as empirical facts, however, that humans have feelings and our actions affect others – these are therefore well-founded premises for a moral system. Philosophers have tried to derive from there further premises as a starting point for a moral system. The goal is to derive the most fundamental principles, or determine the most reasonable first principles, and then proceed carefully from there.

The entire blog post is here.

The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas

Daniel M. Bartels & David A. Pizarro
Cognition 121 (2011) 154–161

Abstract

Researchers have recently argued that utilitarianism is the appropriate framework by which to evaluate moral judgment, and that individuals who endorse non-utilitarian solutions to moral dilemmas (involving active vs. passive harm) are committing an error. We report a study in which participants responded to a battery of personality assessments and a set of dilemmas that pit utilitarian and non-utilitarian options against each other.  Participants who indicated greater endorsement of utilitarian solutions had higher scores on measures of Psychopathy, machiavellianism, and life meaninglessness. These results question the widely-used methods by which lay moral judgments are evaluated, as these approaches lead to the counterintuitive conclusion that those individuals who are least prone to moral errors also possess a set of psychological characteristics that many would consider prototypically immoral.

The entire article is here.

The link to this article will remain in the Articles and Papers Related to Ethics section of this site.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

"I Am Sorry That It Has Come to This": A Soldier's Last Words

The Suicide Note of Daniel Somers

Here is an excerpt:

I am sorry that it has come to this.

The fact is, for as long as I can remember my motivation for getting up every day has been so that you would not have to bury me. As things have continued to get worse, it has become clear that this alone is not a sufficient reason to carry on. The fact is, I am not getting better, I am not going to get better, and I will most certainly deteriorate further as time goes on. From a logical standpoint, it is better to simply end things quickly and let any repercussions from that play out in the short term than to drag things out into the long term.

You will perhaps be sad for a time, but over time you will forget and begin to carry on. Far better that than to inflict my growing misery upon you for years and decades to come, dragging you down with me. It is because I love you that I can not do this to you. You will come to see that it is a far better thing as one day after another passes during which you do not have to worry about me or even give me a second thought. You will find that your world is better without me in it.

I really have been trying to hang on, for more than a decade now. Each day has been a testament to the extent to which I cared, suffering unspeakable horror as quietly as possible so that you could feel as though I was still here for you. In truth, I was nothing more than a prop, filling space so that my absence would not be noted. In truth, I have already been absent for a long, long time.

My body has become nothing but a cage, a source of pain and constant problems. The illness I have has caused me pain that not even the strongest medicines could dull, and there is no cure. All day, every day a screaming agony in every nerve ending in my body. It is nothing short of torture. My mind is a wasteland, filled with visions of incredible horror, unceasing depression, and crippling anxiety, even with all of the medications the doctors dare give. Simple things that everyone else takes for granted are nearly impossible for me. I can not laugh or cry. I can barely leave the house. I derive no pleasure from any activity. Everything simply comes down to passing time until I can sleep again. Now, to sleep forever seems to be the most merciful thing.

You must not blame yourself. The simple truth is this: During my first deployment, I was made to participate in things, the enormity of which is hard to describe. War crimes, crimes against humanity. Though I did not participate willingly, and made what I thought was my best effort to stop these events, there are some things that a person simply can not come back from. I take some pride in that, actually, as to move on in life after being part of such a thing would be the mark of a sociopath in my mind. These things go far beyond what most are even aware of.

Defining The Deep Pain PTSD Doesn't Capture

By Martha Bebinger
WBUR
June 24, 2013

An estimated 22 veterans kill themselves in the U.S. each day. And suicide among men and women on active duty hit a record high last year — 349. As veterans and researchers try to figure out why, there’s growing interest in a condition known as “moral injury,” or wounds to a veteran’s spirit or soul from events that “transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.”

The concept has helped former Marine Corps Capt. Tyler Boudreau understand years of pain that medication and therapy for PTSD didn’t address. He tells his story, somewhat reluctantly, from the living room of his blue clapboard home in Northampton, Mass.

‘This Is What Occupation Looks Like’

Boudreau arrived in Iraq in the March of 2004 at the age of 33 shortly before four American contractors were killed in Fallujah. His unit moved into position for a planned assault on the city.

“We were always getting shelled, constant rocket and mortar attacks,” Boudreau explained. “An IED, the roadside bomb, blew up right next to my vehicle and I was involved in some firefight that was pretty, you know, pretty intense.”

The constant shelling wore on Boudreau. But the daily duties of war, what he did to Iraqis, also took a toll on him.

The entire story is here.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Why Don’t Cops Believe Rape Victims?

Brain science helps explain the problem—and solve it.

By Rebecca Ruiz
Slate.com
Originally posted June 19, 2013

Here are some excerpts:

This is rape culture in action. It puts the burden of proving innocence on the victim, and from Steubenville, Ohio, to Notre Dame and beyond, we’ve seen it poison cases and destroy lives. But science is telling us that our suspicions of victims, the ones that seem like common sense, are flat-out baseless. A number of recent studies on neurobiology and trauma show that the ways in which the brain processes harrowing events accounts for victim behavior that often confounds cops, prosecutors, and juries.

These findings have led to a fundamental shift in the way experts who grasp the new science view the investigation of rape cases—and led them to a better method for interviewing victims. The problem is that the country’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies haven’t been converted. Or at least, most aren’t yet receiving the training to improve their own interview procedures. The exception, it turns out, is the military. Despite its many failings in sexual assault cases, it has actually been at the vanguard of translating the new research into practical tools for investigating rape.

(cut)

This is why, experts say, sexual assault victims often can’t give a linear account of an attack and instead focus on visceral sensory details like the smell of cologne or the sound of voices in the hallway. “That’s simply because their brain has encoded it in this fragmented way,” says David Lisak, a clinical psychologist and forensic consultant who trains civilian and military law enforcement to understand victim and offender behavior.

The entire story is here.