Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education Sign up for our newsletters

LOG IN | REGISTER
Donate
BECOME A MEMBER

TOPICS QUIZZES VIDEOS PODCASTS KEYS TO WELL-BEING "

WORKPLACE | Articles & More

Right and Wrong in the Real ! !

World
From our friendships to our jobs to our conduct in public, seemingly
small decisions often pose tough ethical dilemmas, says Joshua
Halberstam. He offers guidance for navigating the ethical dimension of
everyday life.
BY JOSHUA HALBERSTAM | MARCH 1, 2006
NEW BOOK: SURVIVING
Some years ago, a student asked to see me during office hours to talk about a personal TEACHER BURNOUT
problem that, she assured me, related to our recent ethics class. It seemed she was A weekly guide to build resilience,
having difficulties with a new friend from the Dominican Republic. She explained that deal with emotional exhaustion, and
in normal circumstances she would have ended the relationship, but she was reluctant stay inspired in the classroom
to do so now because of affirmative action.
Learn More
“I’m convinced by the arguments and decided it would be wrong to demand the same
standards from this girl as I do from my other friends,” she said. I, of course,
immediately commented on how this was condescending and then pointed out that
governmental and institutional policies don’t readily apply to our personal RELATED ARTICLES
relationships.

“But why not?” she pressed. “If it’s a

good moral argument, shouldn’t it
apply to my own life?”

My student’s sensitivities were surely

misplaced, but explaining why isn’t
quite so easy. In fact, they reflect the
complex relationship between Five Ways to Use SEL to Promote
Intellectual Humility
communal and personal ethics,
SEPTEMBER 16, 2022
between moral theory and our
© Damian King Lessons from social-emotional learning can
everyday ethical decisions. These aren’t help students learn to accept the idea that
idle ruminations: How we understand their views could be mistaken.
these connections is critical to understanding the moral quality of our lives. This is the
realm of everyday ethics. Three Ways to Feel More Hopeful as
an Educator
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
Now would certainly seem to be the time to care more about everyday ethics. We
When you feel helpless, deflated, or burned
regularly complain about the moral decay of our age, and we have good reason to do out at work, it's possible to find a will and a
so. Ethical misconduct is a mainstay of the news: CEOs raiding corporate coffers, way forward.
widespread auditing fraud, unbridled cheating in school, scientists doctoring data,
reporters lying about sources, politicians still acting like politicians—the incidence Five Ways to Support the Well-Being
of School Leaders
and variety of transgressions seem interminable. No wonder that in a recent Gallup SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Poll, nearly 80 percent of Americans rated the overall state of morality in the United
Burnout rates are high among principals.
States as fair or poor. Even more troubling is the widely held opinion that people are How can we fight burnout and promote self-
becoming more selfish and dishonest. According to that same Gallup Poll, 77 percent care?

of Americans believe that the state of moral values is getting worse. This perception of
decaying values—accurate or not—has its own adverse consequences: It lowers our
expectations for other people’s behavior and leads us to tolerate unethical actions. For TAKE THE COMPASSIONATE
example, in a National Business Survey conducted in October of 2005, a majority of ORGANIZATIONS QUIZ
workers claimed to have observed ethical misconduct in the workplace, roughly the
same number as reported misconduct in the 2003 survey, but the number of
employees who bothered reporting those transgressions fell by 10 percentage points.

But should these findings surprise us? Isn’t wrongdoing just part of “the human
condition”? Can we really teach our children to be more ethical? Or improve ourselves
when we are adults? Moreover, when it comes to our personal interactions, who
decides—and how—what is or isn’t moral?

These are difficult but not rhetorical questions. To address them, we need to get a Does your organization foster compassion or
better sense of what we mean by “everyday ethics” and where it fits into the larger callousness?
picture of morality.
Take the Quiz

What is everyday ethics?

Consider: A TEACHER REFLECTS ON

TEACHING GRATITUDE
• The ATM spits out an extra $100 in your favor. Keep the money and your mouth
shut?

• At a restaurant you notice your friend’s wife engaged in some serious flirting with
another man. Tell your friend—and possibly ruin his marriage—or mind your own
business?

• You can avail yourself of a free wireless connection by accessing the account of your
next-door neighbor. Silly not to? 
Educator Stephen Leeper shares what he learned
• Your colleague is forever taking credit for your and other people’s work. Is it okay to from gratitude journaling with his students. 
exact a little revenge and for once take credit for her labors?

• Your friend is on her way out the door for a significant date and asks whether you
like her blouse. Do you tell her the truth: It’s hideous? EPISODE 124: NINE STEPS TO
FORGIVENESS
• Is it all right to laugh at a sexist joke?

We face choices like these daily: morally laden quandaries that demand direct and
immediate decisions. Unlike moral issues that dominate our dinner conversations—
legalizing abortion, preemptive war, raising the minimum wage—about which we do
little more than pontificate, the problems of everyday ethics call for our own
resolutions. But how do we arrive at our judgments? For example, in answering the
questions above, do you have a quick, intuitive response about what is proper, or do
you consider broader moral principles and then derive a solution? 
How do you forgive someone while still holding
them accountable? What if that person is
The history of philosophy is filled with competing theories that offer such moral
yourself? This week, our guest tries a practice in
principles—for example, there’s theological ethics, which looks to religious sources forgiving herself and someone else.
for moral guidance (see sidebar); consequentialist theories, which judge the moral
value of an act by its results; rational, rule-based theories, such as proposed by
Immanuel Kant, which argue that proper intentions are essential to moral value; and
virtue-based theories, which focus more on character than on behavior.

But when your teenager asks if you ever did drugs, it’s unlikely that you’ll undertake a
complex utilitarian calculus or work out the details of how a categorical imperative
would apply in this case. In fact, in dealing with so many of our everyday moral
challenges, it is difficult to see just how one would implement the principles of a moral
theory. No wonder that many moral philosophers insist they have no more to say
about these specific situations than a theoretical physicist does when confronting a
faulty spark plug. Nonetheless, your response to your curious teenager, as with all
cases in the domain of everyday ethics, presents a practical, immediate moral
challenge that you cannot avoid.

Embracing the moral importance of these ordinary dilemmas, some ethicists have
posited a bottom-up perspective of ethical decision making that places these
“mundane,” ordinary human interactions at the very heart of moral philosophy.

According to this view, because traditional moral theories can’t reach down to our
routine lives, we should question their practical value. Take, for example, the “demand
for impartiality,” the notion, common to many moral theories, that we treat everyone
the same. But of course we don’t—nor should we. Suppose you spend three hours at
the bedside of your sick spouse and then declare, “Hey, you know I would do the same
for anyone. It’s my moral duty.” Don’t expect your spouse to be delighted with your
righteousness. Caring for a loved one because of a moral principle is, as the
philosopher Bernard Williams said, “one reason too many.”

Other philosophers are uneasy with the moral ideal posited in mainstream theories;
not only is the theoretical idea of moral perfection unattainable, it’s not even
desirable. After all, who wants to hang out and grab a beer with a moral saint? Indeed,
who wants to be the kind of person who never hangs out and has a beer because of
more pressing moral tasks? Still other critics note that typical academic moral
arguments ignore the complexity and texture of our ordinary lives. As philosopher
Martha Nussbaum and others suggest, an observant novel will often be more
instructive about our moral lives than an academic treatise. 

Well, if we don’t appeal to moral theories when deciding problems of everyday ethics,
how then do we make these decisions? 

At the outset, we need to recognize—and take seriously—the difficulties inherent in

these judgments. The interesting ethical questions aren’t those that offer a choice
between good and evil—that’s easy—but pit good versus good, or bad versus even
worse. Take, for example, the case of our friend walking out the door wearing that
unappealing blouse on her way to a crucial date. She asks for your opinion on her
attire. Honesty demands you to tell her the truth, but compassion urges you to give
her the thumbs up. It’s worth noticing that other values, say friendship, surely should
count here… but how? Perhaps one ought to be more truthful to a friend than a
stranger, but then, too, one ought to be especially encouraging to a friend. Appealing
to clear-cut moral principles such as “Do unto others as you have them do unto you”
isn’t decisive here, either: Do you want to be told the truth in this case?

Presumably, different people might offer different answers.

We can, nonetheless, draw a few lessons from even this hasty consideration of
everyday moral dilemmas.

One: We need to be clear about which values are at play. While we often don’t have the
luxury of a long, careful weighing of competing principles, our actions will be moral
only if they are the firm result of our intention to act morally and not, say, to fulfill a
selfish interest.

Two: Intellectual honesty is always a challenge. With regard to lying, for example, we
need to acknowledge how easy it is to justify dishonesty by claiming compassion or
some other good when, in fact, we merely want to avoid unpleasant confrontations.
Our capacity for rationalization is remarkable: “Everyone does it,” “I’ll do it just this
one time,” “It’s for her own good,” “It’s none of my business,” and on and on.

Three: We need to give slack to people with whom we disagree. Inasmuch as the
problems posed by everyday ethics are genuine dilemmas but do not allow the luxury
of lengthy, careful analysis, decent people for decent reasons can reach opposing
conclusions. 

But how then do we make our quick judgments about what to do in these everyday
moral situations? What’s going on in our minds?

The science of everyday ethics

Over the past few years, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, and cognitive
psychologists have been exploring these very questions. And they are making some
startling discoveries. 

For example, using functional MRI (fMRI) scans of the brain, neuropsychologist
Joshua Greene has found that different types of moral choices stimulate different
areas of the brain. His findings present an astonishing challenge to the way we usually
approach moral decisions.

Consider, for example, a popular thought experiment posed by moral philosophers:

the “trolley-car” cases. Suppose you are the driver of a runaway trolley car that is
approaching five men working on the track. As you speed down toward this tragedy,
you realize you can divert the train to a side track and thereby kill only one person
who is working on that other track. What do you do?

Now consider an alternative case: Suppose you aren’t the train conductor but are
standing on a cliff watching the train careen toward the endangered five people. Next
to you is a fat person whose sheer bulk could stop the oncoming trolley. Should you
give him a shove so that he’ll fall onto the track and be killed by the train—but in the
process, you’d save five other lives?

Most people say they would save the five lives in case one, but not in case two—and
offer complicated reasons for their choices. What Greene found in his research was
that different parts of our brains are at work when we consider these two different
scenarios. In the first case, the area associated with the emotions remains quiet—we
are just calculating—but in the second case, which asks us to imagine actually killing
someone up close and personally, albeit to save five other people, the emotional area
of the brain lights up. In Greene’s view, this suggests that we bring to our moral
judgments predilections that are hard-wired in our brains, and emotions might play a
more significant role in our decision making than we realize, particularly in the case of
everyday ethical dilemmas that affect us personally.

Brain research of this kind underscores the claims of evolutionary psychologists who
maintain that many of our moral attitudes are grounded in our genetic history. They
suggest, as does Greene, that because we evolved in small groups, unaware of people
living halfway around the world, we have stronger instinctive moral reactions to
problems that affect us directly than to those that are more abstract. In this view, for
example, evolutionary strategy dictates our preferences for kin over strangers, and
makes us more likely to display altruism toward people we can see first-hand.

Cognitive psychologists, for their part, are examining how moral decisions are formed
—demonstrating, for example, how selective images, such as pictures of starving
children, can alter and enlarge our sphere of empathy, and how social environments
can either stultify or nurture compassion. 

Many warn against seeing a “science of ethics” as the ultimate arena for the study of
moral decision making. They remind us that our pre-set inclinations—how we are—do
not prescribe or justify how we ought to be.

But this ongoing research is of vital importance to our understanding of ethics, and in
particular, everyday ethics. In the first place, we will better acknowledge the
constraints we battle in acting “against our natures.” For example, if evolutionary
psychologists are right and our ethical decisions are informed by an evolutionary
preference for those in our immediate group, we can better understand why it takes
such an effort to get people to spend their money on the poor of Africa rather than on
another pair of ice skates for their kids, or to respect members of other cultures as
they do their own. Moreover, this research can be extremely helpful as we determine
how best to teach ethics to our children. Indeed, studies of the brain and our genome
might shed light on how it is that some individuals turn out decent and caring and
others cold and obnoxious.

The challenges of everyday ethics

All this data cannot, however, answer our fundamental challenge: How should we act
and what kind of people should we strive to be? As we’ve seen, we cannot rely on
rarified moral theories to help us deal with the pressing demands of everyday ethics.
Nor can we rely on our biological dispositions to point us toward the best ethical
judgments. Rather, we have to confront the integrity of our character, our honed
intuitions, our developed sense of fairness and honesty. And to see how these traits
are exhibited, we need to see how they work in action. 

The articles in the rest of this issue do just that. This is how ethics gets played in the
classroom, at work, at the supermarket, over the dinner table. While the usual moral
evaluations of societies tend to focus on such broad issues as crime, economic equity,
and foreign policy, just as important to consider is the moral health of our everyday
interactions. For after all, this is how our lives are lived: day by day, one “small” moral
judgment after another. 

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your
opinions or behavior?

Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Not sure

Get the science of a meaningful

workplace delivered to your
inbox.
Email Address Sign Up

About the Author

Joshua Halberstam

Joshua Halberstam, Ph.D., is the author of Everyday Ethics: Inspired Solutions to Moral Dilemmas (Viking)
and is currently an adjunct professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. In addition to his
professional writings in philosophy, he has written several books for the general reader on the subjects of
ethics and culture.

You May Also Enjoy

Moral Intuition In Search of the Moral Empathy vs. Logic vs.

Voice Morality
BY JASON MARSH
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007 BY JASON MARSH BY JEREMY ADAM SMITH
MARCH 1, 2004 MARCH 22, 2007

Primal Empathy & The

Roots of Morality
BY JASON MARSH
MARCH 20, 2007

Comments
1 Comment !
1 Login

Join the discussion…

LOG IN WITH
OR SIGN UP WITH DISQUS ?

Name

Sort by Best ' 21 ⥅

Amy Moore • 4 years ago − ⚑

Very interesting article. Thanks!
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

✉ Subscribe % Privacy ⚠ Do Not Sell My Data

Get the science of a meaningful life delivered to your inbox.

Email Address Sign Up

The Greater Good Science Center studies the psychology, sociology, and About
neuroscience of well-being, and teaches skills that foster a thriving, resilient, and Masthead
compassionate society.
Contact
Donate

© 2022 The Greater Good Science Center at the

! " # $
University of California, Berkeley
Developed by Hop Studios

Designed by Project6

Accessibility | Nondiscrimination | Privacy Policy

: