1. Four Myths of Morality Nicholas Epley University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Education affords a rare opportunity in today’s hectic life for reflection. An opportunity to take time out of your life to get better. To learn something that will help you achieve your goals. What you’re doing here takes a ton of time, energy, and resources, and creates mixes of excitement and also plenty of stress. What for? Why are you here? What are you reaching for in your life that you hope our classes will help you achieve? Education like this is inherently a developmental process. You are developing towards something, learning, changing, acquiring knowledge in the hopes of achieving some set of goals you do not currently have. What are those goals? What are you striving for in your life?

2. “The whole of science is nothing more than the refinement of everyday thinking.”
—Albert Einstein

3. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys. 3

4. 4

5. This characterization of behavior is woven into all of the world’s major religions as battles between the forces of good and evil, and woven throughout our entertainment. Bad guys, in our imagination aren’t a little bad, they’re really bad. In the movies, the bad guys look like this… 5

6. —Estimated at < 1 % of the general population
Characteristics of a Psychopath (Hare, 1998):
—Lack of remorse and empathy for others
—Impulsive and erratic behavior
—Average/above average intelligence but lack of focus
—Superficial charm
—Calm and at ease with deception and lying.
—Failure to learn from past mistakes
—A high sense of self-worth and narcissism
—Insincerity and unreliability
—Impersonal sex life and detachment
But in real life, the really bad guy don’t look so obviously bad, they look like this guy. This is Ted Bundy, a serial murderer, and a psychopathy. And this is what really bad guys sound like.
And they sound like this. Here is Charles Manson.
End with, But here’s the good news, these extreme examples of psychopaths are nearly as rare in everyday life as comic superheroes. it’s probably not any of you!!
We exchanged s and the Deputy Editor arranged for the New York Times to issue a correction, which was as follows:
“This article [Capitalists and Other Psychopaths] has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 20, 2012
An opinion essay on May 13 about ethics and capitalism misstated the findings of a 2010 study on psychopathy in corporations. The study found that 4 percent of a sample of 203 corporate professionals met a clinical threshold for being described as psychopaths, not that 10 percent of people who work on Wall Street are clinical psychopaths. In addition, the study, in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law, was not based on a representative sample; the authors of the study say that the 4 percent figure cannot be generalized to the larger population of corporate managers and executives.”
A Comment on Prevalence
As things stand, we do not know the prevalence of psychopathy among those who work on Wall Street. It may be even higher than 10%, on the assumption that psychopathic entrepreneurs and risk-takers tend to gravitate toward financial watering-holes, particularly those that are enormously lucrative and poorly regulated. But, until the research has been conducted, we are left with anecdotal evidence and widespread speculation.
Further, in evaluating estimates about the prevalence of psychopathy it is important to note that they typically are based on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) or one of its derivatives. PCL-R scores can vary from 0 to 40 and reflect the degree to which the individual matches our conception of the prototypical psychopath. This is in line with recent evidence that (at least at the measurement level) psychopathy is dimensional (i.e., more or less), not categorical (i.e., either or). Dimensionality may pose a problem for diagnosing or categorizing someone as a “psychopath,” a problem shared by other clinical and medical (e.g., anxiety, depression, hypertension, obesity) that often are described and treated as categorical but in fact may be dimensional. But, dimensionality does not preclude the use of “diagnostic” thresholds for making clinical decisions. With respect to psychopathy, a PCL-R threshold of 30 (out of 40) has proven useful for describing persons as psychopathic for research and applied purposes. Those with a “heavy dose” of psychopathic features may pose serious personal, psychological, and financial difficulties for others. However, even those with a somewhat lower dose may present significant problems for those around them, just as those with blood pressure readings below an accepted threshold for hypertension may be at medical risk.
Finally, I note that while the study by Babiak, Neumann, & Hare (Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 2010, 28, ) found that close to 4% of the corporate professionals in the study had a PCL-R score of 30 or higher, some 80% had scores from 0 to 3, similar to the pattern of scores found in the general population. The most interesting part of the study was the finding that high scores were positively associated with in-house ratings of charisma/presentation style (creativity, good strategic thinking and communication skills) but negatively associated with ratings of responsibility/performance (being a team player, management skills, and overall accomplishments).
—Estimated at < 1 % of the general population
—Widely quoted myth: “10% of Wall Streeters are psychopaths”
—Robert Hare’s correction:
—Probably not any of you, or the people working for you. 6

7. Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
Background Survey :
Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
Factor 1: Empathy
Higher numbers, less empathy
Higher numbers, more antisocial
Factor 2: Antisocial Behavior
Factor 1: 16 items: Empathy: “Success is based on survival of the fittest. I am not concerned about the losers.” Or, “For Me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.” “Making money is my most important goal.”
Factor 2: 10 items: Antisocial behavior: “I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people.” “ I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time.” “I don’t plan anything very far in advance.” and “Love is overrated.”
Class:
Factor 1: 27.81
Factor 2: 18
.93
Factor 1:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 7.25
2 SDs = 14.50
Factor 2:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 5
2 SDs = 10
Sample Sample Size Factor 1 (SD) Factor 2 (SD)
Prisoners in U.S. 1, (7.60) (5.64)
Undergraduates (Original Sample) (6.86) (4.06)
Prisoners in U.S. Currently Receiving Psychtropic Medication and Diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
(8.19) (5.05) 7

8. Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
Background Survey :
Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
Average (27.81 vs )
Higher numbers, more antisocial
Factor 2: Antisocial Behavior
Average
(18.93 vs )
Factor 1: 16 items: Empathy: “Success is based on survival of the fittest. I am not concerned about the losers.” Or, “For Me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.” “Making money is my most important goal.”
Factor 2: 10 items: Antisocial behavior: “I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people.” “ I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time.” “I don’t plan anything very far in advance.” and “Love is overrated.”
Class:
Factor 1: 27.81
Factor 2: 18
.93
Factor 1:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 7.25
2 SDs = 14.50
Factor 2:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 5
2 SDs = 10
Sample Sample Size Factor 1 (SD) Factor 2 (SD)
Prisoners in U.S. 1, (7.60) (5.64)
Undergraduates (Original Sample) (6.86) (4.06)
Prisoners in U.S. Currently Receiving Psychtropic Medication and Diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
(8.19) (5.05)
Factor 1: Empathy
Higher numbers, less empathy 8

9. Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
Background Survey :
Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale (1996)
2 SDs
Average (27.81 vs )
2 SDs
Higher numbers, more antisocial
Factor 2: Antisocial Behavior
Average
(18.93 vs )
Factor 1: 16 items: Empathy: “Success is based on survival of the fittest. I am not concerned about the losers.” Or, “For Me, what’s right is whatever I can get away with.” “Making money is my most important goal.”
Factor 2: 10 items: Antisocial behavior: “I have been in a lot of shouting matches with other people.” “ I find myself in the same kinds of trouble time after time.” “I don’t plan anything very far in advance.” and “Love is overrated.”
Class:
Factor 1: 27.81
Factor 2: 18
.93
Factor 1:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 7.25
2 SDs = 14.50
Factor 2:
Rounded Mean:
SD = 5
2 SDs = 10
Sample Sample Size Factor 1 (SD) Factor 2 (SD)
Prisoners in U.S. 1, (7.60) (5.64)
Undergraduates (Original Sample) (6.86) (4.06)
Prisoners in U.S. Currently Receiving Psychtropic Medication and Diagnosed with Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder
(8.19) (5.05)
Factor 1: Empathy
Higher numbers, less empathy 9

10. The Banality of Evil… Stanley Milgram (1974) The “Learner”
47 year-old Accountant 10

11. The Banality of Evil… Stanley Milgram (1974)
Obedience prods from the experimenter:
Please continue, or Please go on.
The experiment requires you continue
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
Special prods: If the subject asked if the learner was likely to suffer permanent damage: “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permananet tissue damage, so please go on.
If the subject said the lerner didn’t want to do on: “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.” 11

12. The Banality of Evil… Stanley Milgram (1974)
Recent replication w/ ABC News (Burger, 2009)
—70% obedience with voice feedback
—No gender difference.
—modestly predicted by empathic concern (r = .26)
Actual% 0%
% choosing highest shock level:
Exp. #1 (Baseline): %
Exp. #3 (Touch victim): %
Obedience prods from the experimenter:
Please continue, or Please go on.
The experiment requires you continue
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
Special prods: If the subject asked if the learner was likely to suffer permanent damage: “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permananet tissue damage, so please go on.
If the subject said the lerner didn’t want to do on: “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”
Exp. #14 (Authority as victim): %
12.5%
10% 5%
2.5%
Exp. #15 (Contradictory Authority): 0%
Exp. #17 (Peer Rebels): %
65%
Exp. #18 (Peer Obeys): %

13. The Banality of Evil…
Bystander nonintervention—e.g., Walter Vance on Black Friday
Happened in West Virginia
Walter Vance was a wonderful person who had a heart attack at
the worst possible time— in the aisle of a crowded Target store
on the busiest shopping day of the year, Black Friday. Amid the throngs
of deal- crazed shoppers, Vance’s fatal struggle was almost completely
ignored. Witnesses later reported seeing nearby shoppers going about
their normal business as Vance lay collapsed in an aisle; one person
after another passed without stopping to help.1
Having a heart attack is horrible but not entirely surprising. In
America alone, roughly two thousand people die each day from heart
disease.2 What’s surprising is having a heart attack in the middle
of a crowded store on the busiest day of the year and being almost
completely ignored. What on earth could these bystanders have been
thinking?
Th e explanation was obvious to one of Vance’s friends. “Where is
the Good Samaritan side of people?” she asked. “I just don’t understand
if people didn’t help what their reason was, other than greed
because of a sale.” Th e obvious reason is that these shoppers were indifferent
bargain hunters who cared more about reaching up to grab a
cheap coff eepot than about reaching down to help a dying man. Callous
actions are caused by callous minds.
Darley & Latane: Students arrive in the laboratory , taken to individual rooms, and given an opportunity to talk about personal problems with college life
Vance’s co-worker: "Where is the good Samaritan side of people? How could you not notice someone was in trouble? I just don't understand if people didn't help what their reason was, other than greed because of a sale." 13

15. The Banality of Evil…
In my book, … I angered some people by suggesting that [the] Wall Street C.E.O.s involved in the run-up to the financial crisis were “neither sociopaths nor idiots nor felons. For the most part, they are bright, industrious, not particularly imaginative Americans who worked their way up, cultivated the right people, performed a bit better than their colleagues, and found themselves occupying a corner office during one of the great credit booms of all time.”
—John Cassidy, The New Yorker, 2013 15

16. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances. 16

17. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—The myth of pure evil (Baumeister, 1997). Evil actions caused by evil intent.
“Well, you know what happens is, it starts out with you taking a little bit, maybe a few hundred, a few thousand. You get comfortable with that, and before you know it, it snowballs into something big.”
Vanity Fair (2009)
"Everybody on the outside kept claiming I was a sociopath.”
About Ruth. “She feels sorry for me, because she knows I’m not a horrible person.”
New York Magazine (2011) 17

18. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—The myth of pure evil (Baumeister, 1997). Evil actions caused by evil intent.
Perspective of perpetrator vs. victim. Baumeister’s airplane story.
—The fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977)
Overestimating the degree to which behavior is caused by consistent intentions, abilities, or dispositions, and underestimating the power of the context to weaken the relationship between actions and intentions.
—Bad Apples and Rogue Traders instead of Bad Barrels and Rogue Culture
—Overestimate the extent to which our own actions are guided by our good intentions. Think we are more ethical than we actually are.
e.g., Daffodil Days… (Epley & Dunning, 2000) 18

19. Daffodil Days: Actual Epley & Dunning, 2000
In one experiment, for example, Cornell University students were asked to predict their own and others’ behavior at an upcoming charity event. Every year during this event, fraternity and sorority members swarm the campus selling daffodils for $1 each to benefit the American Cancer Society. Students were asked to predict whether or not they would buy a daffodil, and if they would, how many they would buy. These students also predicted the percentage of their peers (participating in this experiment) who would buy at least one daffodil, and to predict the average number their peers would purchase. In general, students predicted that they would behave more ethically than their peers. A total of 83% predicted they would purchase a flower but thought only 56% of their peers would do likewise. In actuality, only 43% of these students actually purchased a flower, a far cry from the figure predicted for the self but relatively closer to predictions of others. A similar pattern emerged with the number of flowers students expected to purchase, anticipating that they would purchase roughly 2 flowers but that their peers would purchase only In actuality, these students purchased, on average, 1.2 flowers. These results are surprising on several counts, not the least of which is that nearly all of these students were in their 3rd and 4th years at Cornell and were thus seasoned veterans of Daffodil Days. Despite this history, students were more accurate overall predicting others’ behavior than their own.
Undermining an “it’s all about flowers” critique, similar results have been observed when people predict how likely they are to cooperate with a partner in a competitive game, how likely they are to behave altruistically when assigning difficult tasks to themselves and others, how much of their payment for participating in an experiment they would be willing to donate to one of several charities, and how quickly they will complete an important project . In each of these cases, people believed that they were more likely to behave in an ethical or desirable fashion than their peers, and in each case people’s predictions about others were generally more calibrated than predictions about themselves. It appears that people’s tendency to feel above average or “holier than thou” is produced by unrealistically positive perceptions of the self rather than by unrealistically negative perceptions of others.
Actual
Epley & Dunning, 2000 19

20. Daffodil Days:
Actual
Epley & Dunning, 2000 20

21. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—Truth: Context is surprisingly powerful. Bad can be done with good intentions, or when failing to consider ethical implications of action (Ethical Blindness). 21

22. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
3. It’s about ethical principles: Ethical actions are guided by ethical reasoning.
we have to recognize is that we all have brains that are somewhat schizophrenic. Passion and reason.
Plato: reason and passion, his image was of a charriot driver and wild horses
This split nature of our personality has been advocated for a very long time.
Odysseus strapped himself to the mast to save himself from the sirens.
Hume talked about the distinction between passion and reason, and suggested that passion was much stronger than reason.
Freud had an imagine of a buggy rider and runaway horses.
The analogy I like best is from Jon Haidt, of a rider on an elephant. Because over the last 100 years of psychological research it has become clear that our instictual urges migth be much stronger than you expect.
You know you want tog et up at 6 in the morning to exercise, and yet there you are hitting the snooze button over and over again.
You say you want to lose weight but there you are standing in your underwear in the middle of the night eating Cheetos right out of the bag. What are you doing?
You know you’re not supposed to lie but when you boss jumps in and asks did you make the numbers you go, “hmm…sure did, Boss!”
You know you should give to Charity but then hmmm… your elephant wants a soda instead.
Consider this experiment by Haidt that shows this schizophrenic quality of our minds. This tug between passion and reason.
Selling Souls: Roughly 50% said they were atheists, and yet only 23% said “yes.”
Analogy of the mind as a Rider on an Elephant (Haidt)
Elephant is emotional, impatient, myopic, social, and fast
Rider is rational, analytical, reasonable, rule-based, and slow 22

23. Ethics without reasoning…
—Moral Dumbfounding (Haidt, Bjorklund, & Murphy, 2000)
—Jennifer the Cannibal: “Anything wrong with what she did?”
—Haidt’s method: ask why?, remove reason, still wrong?
Participants would report it was still wrong even when reasons were removed: moral dumbfounding.
Both of these examples are described in the Haidt for class, and the incest example is described in the Pinker reading.
Jennifer the Cannibal Story:
“Jennifer works in a medical school pathology lab as a research assistant. The lab prepares human cadavers that are used to teach medical students about anatomy. The cadavers come from people who had donated their body to science for research. One night Jennifer is leaving the lab when she sees a body that is going to be discarded the next day. Jennifer was a vegetarian, for moral reasons. She thought it was wrong to kill animals for food. But then, when she saw a body about to be cremated, she thought it was irrational to waste perfectly edible meat. So she cut off a piece of flesh, and took it home and cooked it. The person had died recently of a heart attack, and she cooked the meat thoroughly, so there was no risk of disease. Is there anything wrong with what she did?”
Only 13% say “no,” nothing wrong with that.
“Julie and Mark, who are brother and sister are traveling together in France. They are both on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy it, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret between them, which makes them feel even closer to each other. So what do you think about this? Was it wrong for them to have sex?”
Only 20% say “no,” that it was not wrong for them to have sex. 23

24. Ethics without reasoning…
Chocolate ice cream, you’re not going to eat it.
Gummy boogers, not a top seller.
And you might be damn thirsty, but you’re going to think twice about drinking out of this water fountain. 24

25. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—Truth: Context is surprisingly powerful. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
3. It’s about ethical principles: Ethical actions are guided by ethical reasoning.
—Truth: Reasoning often follows action to justify, explain, or rationalize it. 25

26. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—Truth: Context is surprisingly powerful. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
3. It’s about ethical principles: Ethical actions are guided by ethical reasoning.
—Truth: Reasoning often follows action to justify, explain, or rationalize it.
4. Everyone is different: Everything is relative.
—Have to teach people your view of right and wrong. 26

27. 27

28. Perception
Unethical
Ethical
Unethical
Ethical
Reality 28

29. The Moral Instinct: The Golden Rule, again and again…
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Judaism, Leviticus 19:18
“Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
Christianity, Matthew 7:12
“Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
Islam, Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi, 13
“A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.” Jainism, Sutrakritanga, 1:11.33
“Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.”
Confucianism, Mencius VII:A.4
“One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality.”
Hinduism, Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113:8
“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”
Immanuel Kant, Categorical Imperative 29

30. Care Fairness Community Authority Sanctity
Graham, Haidt, & Nosek (2009):
How much would you need to be paid to:
$ (0-4 scale)
Care
Fairness
Community
Authority
Sanctity
Moral Principle
1. Stick a sterile needle into your arm.
2. Stick a sterile needle into a child’s arm.
1. Accept an errant TV from a friend.
2. Accept a stolen TV from a friend.
1. Say something bad about your nation that you don’t believe on a radio station in your own country.
2. Say something bad about your nation that you don’t believe on a radio station a foreign country.
How much would someone have to pay you to perform each of these actions? Assume that you'd be paid secretly and that there would be no social, legal, or other harmful consequences to you afterward. Answer by typing a number from 0 to 4 under each action, where:
0 = $0, I'd do it for free
1= $100
2 = $10,000
3 = $1,000,000
4 = I would not do this for any amount of money
1. Slap a male friend in the face for a comedy sketch.
2. Slap your father in the face for a comedy sketch.
1. Attend avant-garde play where actors act like fools.
actors act like animals for 30 minutes, crawling naked on the floor and grunting like chimpanzees. 30

31. Care Fairness Community Authority Sanctity
Graham, Haidt, & Nosek (2009):
How much would you need to be paid to:
$ (0-4 scale)
Care
Fairness
Community
Authority
Sanctity
Moral Principle
1. Stick a sterile needle into your arm.
1.55
2. Stick a sterile needle into a child’s arm.
3.14
1. Accept an errant TV from a friend.
.64
2. Accept a stolen TV from a friend.
2.93
1. Say something bad about your nation that you don’t believe on a radio station in your own country.
.71
2. Say something bad about your nation that you don’t believe on a radio station a foreign country.
1.39
1. Slap a male friend in the face for a comedy sketch.
.26
2. Slap your father in the face for a comedy sketch.
1.23
1. Attend avant-garde play where actors act like fools.
.92
actors act like animals for 30 minutes, crawling naked on the floor and grunting like chimpanzees.
1.45 31

32. Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009 Observe Fairness in: Rhesus monkeys
(Brosnan & DeWall, 2004)
Prelinguistic infants
(Hamlin, 2013)
Observe Ingroup Loyalty in:
Capuchin monkeys
(DeWall et al., 2008)
Prelinguistic infants
(Kanngiesser & Warneken, 2012)
Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009

33. Four “Myths” About Morality
1. It’s the people: There are good guys and bad guys.
Truth: Mythical figures are evil or good, black or white. Most people are gray. Good people can do bad things under predictable circumstances.
It’s all about motives: Bad acts are guided by bad intentions, Good acts act guided by good intentions.
—Truth: Context is surprisingly powerful. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
3. It’s about ethical principles: Ethical actions are guided by ethical reasoning.
—Truth: Reasoning often follows action to justify, explain, or rationalize it.
4. Everyone is different: Everything is relative.
—Basic moral foundations to build on, even amid differences generated by individual experiences, background, and immediate context. 33

34. So what? This conference: Ethics as a DESIGN problem.
It’s all about motives.
1. It’s the people.
3. It’s about ethical principles.
4. Everyone is different.
These four “myths”…
This conference:
Ethics as a DESIGN problem.
…create misperception:
Unethical behavior is mainly a BELIEF problem. 34

35. Ethics by Design Design to match constraints. Humans:
1. Have limited memory.
2. Have limited attention.
3. Pursue goals myopically.
4. Are highly social. 35

36. Ethics by Design Design to match constraints. Humans:
1. Have limited memory.
2. Have limited attention.
3. Pursue goals myopically.
4. Are highly social.
A framework for designing ETHICs:
1. Explicit beliefs: Design missions that are clear, memorable, and actionable.
2. Thoughts during judgment: Design policies and heuristics that keep ethics top of mind.
“Is it right,” rather than “Is it legal?”
3. Incentives: Design with multiple incentives in mind, aligned with ethics.
Money and penalties, but also purpose, meaning, and reputation.
Reward ethical behavior in addition to punishing unethical behavior.
4. Cultural Norms: Infuse everyday activity with ethical considerations.
Include ethics in key drivers of organizational behavior: hiring, promotion, evaluation, rewarding.
Highlight Beacons, not just Black Holes. 36