Thank you, Charles. This is a great post. Charles, your post reminded me of the fascinating research of Stanford's Dale Miller who has shown that students, on average, become LESS ethical after taking an economics course.
I believe Miller was also the one who conducted studies that showed that when people were asked why they had donated money to a cause they would privately say altruism yet publicly say "to get a tax break," suggesting that the assumptions of economics have become a social norm that governs the American psyche. A great paper on the subject can be found here <https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/30702680/AMR-Jan2005.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1549209800&Signature=2gA8Plx004wvy1a9Qbftq9%2BfLoM%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DEconomics_language_and_assumptions_How_t.pdf> . We also know from U.S. researchers of communities who have been running a continuous yearly national community survey since the 1940s that trust among Americans has been eroding since at least that time. And then there are cross-cultural studies such as those that study the societal reactions to suicides and mass shootings: In collectivistic societies like China, the reaction is that the community somehow must've failed the individual. In individualistic societies like the U.S., the reaction is that the individual is deranged and a lone wolf. On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 3:03 AM Charles M. Ess <c.m....@media.uio.no> wrote: > Paul's comments are spot on: thanks for raising a central and critical > issue. > > It would be great to have the sort of empirical evidence suggested - and > below I will allude to some anecdotal evidence. > But part of the response is, it's complicated, beginning with attempting > to devise a study that could isolate the impacts of such a course > vis-a-vis specific ethical choices and actions. As with, say, studies > that attempt to dis/prove causal connections between say, internet porn > and violent content on behavior, it is monstrously difficult to prove > with much certainty either one or the other. > > But underneath this is an assumption or two that should also be > interrogated. One assumption - especially prominent in the US context, > as shaped by specific Christian assumptions about human nature - is that > people are inclined towards selfishness and are thereby less "naturally" > social, cooperative, etc; rather, they can only be coerced into doing so > by some form of force - whether open and brutal (Thomas Hobbes' > Leviathan, a Christian theocracy, threats of eternal damnation in > hellfire, the total surveillance state or corporation, etc.) or more > subtle: Santa Claus / B.F. Skinner systems of rewards for desired > behaviors, etc. > In these contexts, my experience has been that the (second and > consequent) default assumption - including in professional communities > such as police and first responders, lawyers, as well as engineers of > various expertise - is that "ethics" means a rulebook to impose order / > desired behavior on a target audience otherwise inclined to be less than > "ethical." (And, unfortunately, I have to admit that ethics is taught > this way in all too many instances.) > > There may be some good ways to try to teach ethics under these > assumptions - but again, attempting to provide solid evidence that > people behave better afterwards will be difficult indeed. > > As an alternative: the assumption many of us make - starting from > Aristotle forward - is that people are already reasonably well > enculturated and experienced with "ethics" - meaning more broadly, a > capacity to recognize the primary dimensions of a difficult ethical > choice and to discern / judge the preferable way(s) forward. > (And in a Scandinavian context, the assumption is that human beings are > primarily / "naturally" good - including other-regarding and so on. > There are a range of historical and cultural factors that support these > views - and they are manifest in such measured matters as the highest > trust levels in the world, vanishingly small crime rates, community > policing without weapons, etc., etc.) > In any event, for those of us who have been privileged to teach ethics > in both academic and professional settings, this approach begins with > the emphasis that ethics is not primarily about imposing some sort of a > rulebook (utilitarian, deontological, etc.) upon those who would > otherwise be clueless. It is rather about first interrogating the > ethical sensibilities and experiences of our interlocutors - most > especially among professionals who often have many decades of experience > to draw on. > Involving ethics in these domains - e.g., research ethics in the social > sciences, ethics for design in ICT, and/or the ethical dimensions of > specific "Big Data" projects involving computer scientists and > engineers, police and first responders, national emergency authorities, > etc. - is then a much different matter from attempting to impose a rule > book. It is often characterized in terms of "process" or dialogical > ethics - oriented more towards using philosophical and applied ethics to > provide concepts and frameworks that help practitioners more fully > articulate and critically assess their extant ethical sensibilities and > approaches. > I can tell you that in the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR), > after the first decade or so of approaching internet research ethics in > these ways (i.e., starting in 2000) - the broad experience and consensus > is that incorporating ethics in these ways not only helps with analyzing > and resolving often complex and novel ethical challenges: it also leads > to substantively better research in good old fashioned social science > terms. This is part of the reason why the association supports the > on-going development of ethical guidelines - FWIW, our 3rd iteration > will be delivered this October at the AoIR annual meeting in Brisbane. > > I can also tell you that our collective experience in teaching ethics in > these ways consistently receives strongly positive evaluations in the > workshops - whether with academics and/or professional communities - we > have offered since 2002 or so. > That's not evidence that people will behave any better as a result. But > it is evidence that people feel greater confidence by way of having more > conceptual tools to draw on when confronting ethical challenges - an > impression I also strongly hold from teaching undergraduates, FWIW. > > I also have at least anecdotal evidence from the colleagues involved > with the IEEE initiative that this initiative is built in part on an > emerging awareness among their professional communities that ethics, > especially as approached in these more dialogical and process-oriented > ways, is not just important for utilitarian cost-benefit approaches > (minimally, don't break the law; don't design things that will get my > company sued, etc.) - but likewise for the sake of better design per se. > > In short: my now lengthy experience is that exposure to and discussion > of ethics is appreciated as it provides people with conceptual tools and > examples that are helpful for their more effectively recognizing and > analyzing the ethical choices confronting them, and, on a good day, for > more effectively resolving often difficult ethical dilemmas. > This strikes me as intrinsically worthwhile, especially if we regard one > another as human beings who are ethical beings per se, no matter what > their choice of study or profession may be. > > I hope this makes some sort of sense. Thanks for reading - critical > comments and suggestions welcome. > - charles ess > > > > On 03/02/2019 07:40, Yosem Companys wrote: > > Good point. It'd be great if someone had the answer to that question. > > > > The only study vaguely related that I can remember is that psychology > > experiment where priests who were going to give a sermon were less > > likely to be good samaritans with a confederate in need when they were > > told they were late to give their sermon than when they were told they > > were early. > > > > So situational influences matter. It's not just about teaching personal > > ethics. It's about teaching how to behave in ethical ways when > > confronted by certain situations and learning the situations when you > > might act unethically so if you're ever in that situation you might > > remember and choose to act ethically instead. > > > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:26 PM Paul <tallp...@gmail.com > > <mailto:tallp...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Is there any evidence, or even anecdotes, suggesting that ethics > > courses (in any form) work to make people act more ethically? > > I can see that someone who was already ethical might find > > something they had missed, but it's hard for me (admittedly a > > cynical person) to imagine that an ethics course can make someone > > ethical, any more than one could expect an "empathy" course to make > > people empathetic. > > Paul > > > > > > -- > Professor in Media Studies > Department of Media and Communication > University of Oslo > <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/people/aca/charlees/index.html> > > Postboks 1093 > Blindern 0317 > Oslo, Norway > c.m....@media.uio.no >
-- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu.
