Jump to content

Moral blindness: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Spelling error corrected
Rianahen (talk | contribs)
77 edits
Restructuring of topic and page to include more relevant philosophical and psychological viewpoints as well as more contemporary line of research.
Tags: nowiki added Visual edit
Line 1: Line 1:
''Also referred to as Ethical Blindness, related to but not to be confused with Moral Blind Spots and Moral Myopia.''
'''Moral blindness''' is a state of unawareness or insensibility to moral issues pertaining both to oneself and to one's relations to others. [[George Eliot]] considered that "We are all of us born in moral stupidity, taking the world as an udder to feed our supreme selves".<ref>George Eliot, ''Middlemarch'' (1974) p. 243</ref> Healthy development leads away from early [[egotism]] to produce greater levels of awareness,<ref>R. Skynner/J. Cleese, ''Life and how to survive it'' (1994) p. 241</ref> leading to degrees of what [[Abraham Maslow]] called "lesser blindness".<ref>J. Loevinger, ''Ego Development'' (1976) p. 418</ref>


'''Moral blindness''' is defined as the temporary inability to see the unethical side of a certain context or situation. People who possess [[moral reasoning]] abilities are unable to see reason temporarily due to situational or other factors and thus behave in ways counter to their actual moral values and principles. The idea of moral blindness usually requires the following: people deviate from their intrinsic moral beliefs and this deviation is temporary and unconscious i.e. people are unaware at the time of their unethical behaviour<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last=Palazzo|first=Guido|last2=Krings|first2=Franciska|last3=Hoffrage|first3=Ulrich|date=2012-09-01|title=Ethical Blindness|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=109|issue=3|pages=323–338|doi=10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|issn=1573-0697}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=de Klerk|first=J. J.|date=2017-04-01|title=Nobody is as Blind as Those Who Cannot Bear to See: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on the Management of Emotions and Moral Blindness|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3114-x|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=141|issue=4|pages=745–761|doi=10.1007/s10551-016-3114-x|issn=1573-0697}}</ref>.
Critics question whether "moral blindness" is ever more than a useful weapon of debate with which to charge one's opponents.<ref>A. Edel, ''Ethical Judgement'' (1955) p. 188</ref>


Interest in the idea of moral blindness increased after [[Hannah Arendt]]'s ''[[Eichmann in Jerusalem]]. A Report on the Banality of Evil'' <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Burin|first=Frederic S.|last2=Arendt|first2=Hannah|date=1964-03|title=Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2146583|journal=Political Science Quarterly|volume=79|issue=1|pages=122|doi=10.2307/2146583|issn=0032-3195}}</ref> which focussed on [[Adolf Eichmann]], a German-Austrian Nazi solider who was responsible for deportation of Jews to extermination camps and thus played a major role in [[the Holocaust]].<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2006-10-01|title=Becoming Eichmann: rethinking the life, crimes, and trial of a "desk murderer"|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/choice.44-1163|journal=Choice Reviews Online|volume=44|issue=02|pages=44–1163-44-1163|doi=10.5860/choice.44-1163|issn=0009-4978}}</ref>
==Philosophical views==
Philosophically, moral blindness has been explored from [[Plato]]'s tyrant onwards, through [[Epitectus]] and [[Kant]], but came into full prominence with [[Ethical intuitionism]].<ref>A. Edel, ''Moral Judgement'' (1955) p. 189</ref> Figures like [[G. E. Moore]] argued for a "direct moral awareness"<ref>I. Ousby ed., ''The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English'' (1995) p. 645</ref> and saw moral blindness as the equivalent of colour blindness.<ref>A. Edel, ''Moral Judgement'' (1955) p. 198</ref>


The ideas of moral blindness and the [[Banality of evil|"banality of evil"]] also influenced the field of psychology and led to some notable studies in the 70s such as the [[Milgram experiment|obedience studies]] by [[Stanley Milgram]] and the [[Stanford prison experiment|Stanford Prison Experiment]] by [[Philip Zimbardo]]. These studies looked at the impact of authority on obedience and individual behaviour.
==Developmental views==
[[Melanie Klein]] saw early development in terms of the child slowly emerging from a state of [[narcissism|narcissistic]] blindness to recognise the motherer as a moral end in herself, not simply as the child's means or tool—a step she called the [[depressive position]].<ref>A. Phillips, ''On Flirtation'' (1994) p. 62</ref> [[D. W. Winnicott]] similarly saw the infant as moving from pre-truth to truth from an unconcerned use of the mother to concerned usage.<ref>P. Casement, ''Further Learning from the Patient'' (1997) p. 98</ref>


Subsequent research has looked at moral blindness in contexts beyond war crimes and genocide. The idea has been expanded to study people's behaviour in areas as diverse as [[Organizational behavior|organisational behavior]] and mental health to name a few.
==Postmodern amplifications==
[[Zygmunt Bauman]] considers certain features of 21st century society to actively promote moral blindness. A valorisation of commodities as ephemeral and exchangeable combines with the effect of [[internet]] anonymity to create a culture that tends to ignore of the particularity of the individual.<ref>Z. Bauman/L. Doaskis, ''Moral Blindness'' (2014) p. 11-5</ref> Equally pernicious is the extension of a calculus of gain over ever-wider areas of life, to the exclusion of moral evaluation<ref>Z. Bauman/L. Doaskis, ''Moral Blindness'' (2014) p. 16 and p. 41</ref>—the unchallenged moral blindness of the market.<ref>S. Best, ''A Beginner's Guide to Social Theory'' (2003) p. 243</ref>


== Origins & Early Theories ==
==Literary analogies==
* [[Dante]] has been interpreted as showing vices leading to moral blindness, virtues to moral imagination.<ref>Bill Pucka, ''Moral Development'' (1994) p. 67</ref>
* [[Iain M. Banks]] wrote of "the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal laws—the rules of right and wrong that people imagine apply everywhere else in the universe—break down".<ref>Iain M. Banks, ''Use of Weapons'' (1990) p. 261</ref>


==See also==
{{Columns-list|colwidth=22em|
*[[Denial]]
*[[Kierkegaard]]
*[[Levinas]]
*[[Moral sense theory]]
*[[Negative capability]]
}}


The origins of moral blindness lie in philosophy and can be traced to ancient Greek philosophers such as [[Socrates]] who spoke of [[moral intellectualism]], [[Plato]] who spoke about emotions clouding moral judgements and [[Aristotle]] who first used the term [[Ethics|"ethics"]] for the field of moral philosophy<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Oberhelman|first=David D.|date=2001-06|title=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy2001311Principal Editor, Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University 1999; updated every three months. Internet URL: http://plato.stanford.edu, ISSN: 1095-5054 Gratis Last visited: May 2001|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/rr.2001.15.6.9.311|journal=Reference Reviews|volume=15|issue=6|pages=9–9|doi=10.1108/rr.2001.15.6.9.311|issn=0950-4125}}</ref>. Early spiritual leaders such as [[Gautama Buddha|Buddha]] and [[Confucius]] spoke about moral behaviour in their discourses as well although they were more prescriptive in nature.<ref>{{Citation|last=Tucker|first=John A.|title=Japanese Neo-Confucian Philosophy|date=2015-02-03|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199945726.013.16|work=The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Philosophy|pages=272–290|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-994572-6|access-date=2020-11-30}}</ref> More modern contributions to moral judgement came from Western philosophers such as [[René Descartes|Descartes]], [[George Locke|Locke]], [[David Hume|Hume]] and [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]] around the 17th and 18th century.<ref>{{Citation|last=Cohon|first=Rachel|title=Hume's Moral Philosophy|date=2018|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/hume-moral/|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Fall 2018|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-11-29}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=García Moriyon|date=2011|title=MORAL BLINDNESS|url=http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/2.1.1717.0885|language=en|doi=10.13140/2.1.1717.0885}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Hare|first=John|title=Religion and Morality|date=2019|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/religion-morality/|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Fall 2019|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2020-11-29}}</ref> A more contemporary philosopher, [[G. E. Moore|G.E. Moore]], in his book [[Principia Ethica]] talks about the "indefinability of good"<ref>{{Cite web|last=Cooper|first=Barton C.|date=1959-01-01|title=The Alleged Indefinability of Good|url=https://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=jphil&id=jphil_1959_0056_0025_0977_0985|access-date=2020-11-29|website=The Journal of Philosophy|doi=10.2307/2022719}}</ref>
==References==
{{Reflist|2|}}


==Further reading==
* Bauman Z, Donskis L ''Moral Blindness: The Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity'' (2013)


A lot of the early thought on ethics and morality was [[normative]] in nature: axioms for how an individual was supposed to act in a given situation. [[Normative ethics]] was guided by action and consequences which subsequently led to the development of two opposing views of ethical evaluation within this area: [[Deontological ethics|deontology]] and [[Consequentialist|consequentialism]] where the morality of an action depended on the appropriateness of the action itself with respect to rules or the results of that action. These views are often reflected in responses to [[Trolley problem|Greene's famous trolley problem.]] <ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Bazerman|first=Max H.|last2=Gino|first2=Francesca|date=2012-12|title=Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173815|journal=Annual Review of Law and Social Science|volume=8|issue=1|pages=85–104|doi=10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173815|issn=1550-3585}}</ref>
<!--- Categories --->


Moral reasoning has been studied jointly across philosophy and psychology with empirical studies of morality going back to the 1890s. The focus on a normative approach to moral behaviour led to research focus on the cognitive and developmental context. [[Jean Piaget|Piaget]] put forth his prominent t[[Piaget's theory of cognitive development|heory of cognitive development]] in 1936 which [[Lawrence Kohlberg|Kohlberg]]<nowiki/>developed upon to come up with the [[Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development|three stages of moral development]] in 1958<ref>{{Cite web|date=2014-12-17|title=Wayback Machine|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141217004334/http://hallpike.com/EvolutionOfMoralUnderstanding.pdf|access-date=2020-11-29|website=web.archive.org}}</ref>. Later, in 1982, [[James Rest]] published his influential Four Component Model of Morality (FCM) where he identified four distinct stages from which immoral behaviour could arise: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral implementation <ref name=":1" /> . This model was meant to convey the complexity behind moral behaviour: competence in one stage did not imply competence in another with the result that immoral behaviour could be a consequence of failure at any stage.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=You|first=Di|last2=Bebeau|first2=Muriel J.|date=2013-11-01|title=The independence of James Rest's components of morality: evidence from a professional ethics curriculum study|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2013.846059|journal=Ethics and Education|volume=8|issue=3|pages=202–216|doi=10.1080/17449642.2013.846059|issn=1744-9642}}</ref> The above cognitive focus was found to be in contrast to some of the observed behavior. The field of [[behavioral ethics]] eventually emerged to study how people actually behaved in situations of moral dilemma.

== Later Theoretical & Experimental Research ==


A major driver behind more modern research on moral blindness is purported to be post [[World War II]] sentiments towards people such as Adolf Eichmann (responsible for genocide under the [[Nazism|Nazi]] regime during the Holocaust). His capture and subsequent trial in 1961 had many observers comment on his ordinary nature and appearance which seemed at contrast with his 'evil' behaviour. Hannah Arendt, who was covering the trial for the New Yorker, coined the term the [[Banality of evil|"banality of evil"]] in reference to Eichmann as during the trial, Eichmann showed no remorse nor did he accept responsibility - he claimed to have done what he was told to do. This is believed to have influenced researchers such as Milgram to study individual behaviour in response to obedience to authority.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last=Palazzo|first=Guido|last2=Krings|first2=Franciska|last3=Hoffrage|first3=Ulrich|date=2012-09-01|title=Ethical Blindness|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=109|issue=3|pages=323–338|doi=10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|issn=1573-0697}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Eichmann Trial|url=https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/fr/article/eichmann-trial|access-date=2020-11-30|website=encyclopedia.ushmm.org|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Russell|first=Nestar John Charles|date=2011|title=Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution|url=https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/014466610X492205|journal=British Journal of Social Psychology|language=en|volume=50|issue=1|pages=140–162|doi=10.1348/014466610X492205|issn=2044-8309}}</ref>

In his famous obedience studies in 1961-62, Milgram had subjects administer electric shocks to a [[wiktionary:confederate|confederate]]. These studies had been designed to answer questions such as: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" To most people's surprise then, results showed that 65% of the subjects from the original study went ahead to administer the maximum of 450 volts. <ref>{{Cite book|last=Schulweis, Harold M.|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/731340449|title=Conscience : the duty to obey and the duty to disobey|date=2009|publisher=Jewish Lights Pub|isbn=978-1-58023-419-1|location=Woodstock, Vt.|oclc=731340449}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Blass|first=Thomas|date=1991-03|title=Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|language=en|volume=60|issue=3|pages=398–413|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398|issn=1939-1315}}</ref>

Later in 1971, ZImbardo in his infamous [[Stanford prison experiment|Stanford Prison Experiment]] studied showed how “good people behave in pathological ways that are alien to their nature"”<ref name=":02" />. Male undergraduate students at Stanford were assigned to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison situation to study how far they would go to internalise their roles and obey external orders with shocking results.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bartels|first=Jared|date=2019-11-02|title=Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058|journal=The Journal of Social Psychology|volume=159|issue=6|pages=780–790|doi=10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058|issn=0022-4545|pmid=30961456}}</ref>

Post these findings, researchers began to study [[moral agency]], its exercise and drivers of moral blindness. In his research, [[Albert Bandura|Bandura]] argued that [[moral disengagement]] could arise out of various forces (individual, situational or institutional) and alongwith mechanisms such as [[diffusion of responsibility]] and disconnected division of tasks could lead to immoral behaviour <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bandura|first=Albert|date=1999-08-01|title=Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities|url=https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3|journal=Personality and Social Psychology Review|language=en|volume=3|issue=3|pages=193–209|doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3|issn=1088-8683}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Palazzo|first=Guido|last2=Krings|first2=Franciska|last3=Hoffrage|first3=Ulrich|date=2012-09-01|title=Ethical Blindness|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=109|issue=3|pages=323–338|doi=10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4|issn=1573-0697}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bandura|first=Albert|date=2002-06-01|title=Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency|url=https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322|journal=Journal of Moral Education|volume=31|issue=2|pages=101–119|doi=10.1080/0305724022014322|issn=0305-7240}}</ref>.

More recent research has led to the development of the concept of 'bounded ethicality" - the idea that people can be unintentionally unethical when it comes to their behaviour as well as judging others' behaviour; something they may realise only on further reflection.  <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gino|first=Francesca|date=2015-06-01|title=Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally|url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154615000443|journal=Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences|series=Social behavior|language=en|volume=3|pages=107–111|doi=10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.03.001|issn=2352-1546}}</ref><ref>{{Citation|last=Chugh|first=Dolly|title=Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest|date=2005-04-18|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511610332.006|work=Conflicts of Interest|pages=74–95|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-84439-0|access-date=2020-11-30|last2=Bazerman|first2=Max H.|last3=Banaji|first3=Mahzarin R.}}</ref>. Studies on individual unethicality have also looked at the role of social norms and as well as how we view others' unethical behaviour. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Gino|first=Francesca|last2=Ayal|first2=Shahar|last3=Ariely|first3=Dan|date=2009-03-01|title=Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x|journal=Psychological Science|language=en|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x|issn=1467-9280}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Gino|first=Francesca|last2=Moore|first2=Don A.|last3=Bazerman|first3=Max H.|date=2008|title=See No Evil: When We Overlook Other People's Unethical Behavior|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1079969|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1079969|issn=1556-5068}}</ref>

== Applications & Related Ideas ==


Moral blindness has been applied to a range of domains beyond war crimes, politics and administration. A major area of application has been in the field of management and organisational behaviour with research looking at a wide range of topics such as corporate transgressions, business ethics and moral disengagement at work <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bandura|first=Albert|last2=Caprara|first2=Gian-Vittorio|last3=Zsolnai|first3=Laszlo|date=2016-07-24|title=Corporate Transgressions through Moral Disengagement:|url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/097168580000600106|journal=Journal of Human Values|language=en|doi=10.1177/097168580000600106}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barsky|first=Adam|date=2011-06-16|title=Investigating the Effects of Moral Disengagement and Participation on Unethical Work Behavior|url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=104|issue=1|pages=59|doi=10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7|issn=1573-0697}}</ref>. Law and justice is another area where moral blindness, especially when it comes to lawyers, is seen as a concern.<ref>{{Citation|last=Hall|first=Katherine|title=Why good intentions are often not enough: The potential for ethical blindness in legal decision-making|date=2010|url=https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/32137|publisher=Routledge|language=en|isbn=978-0-415-54653-9|access-date=2020-11-30}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Eldred|first=Tigran|date=2012-09-28|title=Prescriptions for Ethical Blindness: Improving Advocacy for Indigent Defendants in Criminal Cases|url=https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2153869|language=en|location=Rochester, NY}}</ref> Some research has also referred to psychopathy being a specific kind of moral blindness although the findings are not conclusive<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Larsen|first=Rasmus Rosenberg|date=2020-09-01|title=Psychopathy as moral blindness: a qualifying exploration of the blindness-analogy in psychopathy theory and research|url=https://aap.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13869795.2020.1799662|journal=Philosophical Explorations|volume=23|issue=3|pages=214–233|doi=10.1080/13869795.2020.1799662|issn=1386-9795}}</ref>.


The field has also been expanded to study broader ideas such as moral blind spots (overestimating ability to act ethically)<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bazerman|first=Max H.|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9781400837991|title=Blind Spots|last2=Tenbrunsel|first2=Ann E.|date=2011-12-31|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-1-4008-3799-1|location=Princeton}}</ref>, ethical erosion (gradual decline of ethics over time)<ref name=":2" />, and ethical fading (when ethical concerns around a situation 'fade' during decision making)<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tenbrunsel|first=Ann E.|last2=Messick|first2=David M.|date=2004-06|title=Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53|journal=Social Justice Research|language=en|volume=17|issue=2|pages=223–236|doi=10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53|issn=0885-7466}}</ref>.
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]]
[[Category:Moral psychology]]
[[Category:Moral psychology]]

Revision as of 02:15, 30 November 2020

Also referred to as Ethical Blindness, related to but not to be confused with Moral Blind Spots and Moral Myopia.

Moral blindness is defined as the temporary inability to see the unethical side of a certain context or situation. People who possess moral reasoning abilities are unable to see reason temporarily due to situational or other factors and thus behave in ways counter to their actual moral values and principles. The idea of moral blindness usually requires the following: people deviate from their intrinsic moral beliefs and this deviation is temporary and unconscious i.e. people are unaware at the time of their unethical behaviour[1][2].

Interest in the idea of moral blindness increased after Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil [3] which focussed on Adolf Eichmann, a German-Austrian Nazi solider who was responsible for deportation of Jews to extermination camps and thus played a major role in the Holocaust.[4]

The ideas of moral blindness and the "banality of evil" also influenced the field of psychology and led to some notable studies in the 70s such as the obedience studies by Stanley Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo. These studies looked at the impact of authority on obedience and individual behaviour.

Subsequent research has looked at moral blindness in contexts beyond war crimes and genocide. The idea has been expanded to study people's behaviour in areas as diverse as organisational behavior and mental health to name a few.

Origins & Early Theories

The origins of moral blindness lie in philosophy and can be traced to ancient Greek philosophers such as Socrates who spoke of moral intellectualism, Plato who spoke about emotions clouding moral judgements and Aristotle who first used the term "ethics" for the field of moral philosophy[5]. Early spiritual leaders such as Buddha and Confucius spoke about moral behaviour in their discourses as well although they were more prescriptive in nature.[6] More modern contributions to moral judgement came from Western philosophers such as Descartes, Locke, Hume and Kant around the 17th and 18th century.[7][8][9] A more contemporary philosopher, G.E. Moore, in his book Principia Ethica talks about the "indefinability of good"[10]


A lot of the early thought on ethics and morality was normative in nature: axioms for how an individual was supposed to act in a given situation. Normative ethics was guided by action and consequences which subsequently led to the development of two opposing views of ethical evaluation within this area: deontology and consequentialism where the morality of an action depended on the appropriateness of the action itself with respect to rules or the results of that action. These views are often reflected in responses to Greene's famous trolley problem. [11]


Moral reasoning has been studied jointly across philosophy and psychology with empirical studies of morality going back to the 1890s. The focus on a normative approach to moral behaviour led to research focus on the cognitive and developmental context. Piaget put forth his prominent theory of cognitive development in 1936 which Kohlbergdeveloped upon to come up with the three stages of moral development in 1958[12]. Later, in 1982, James Rest published his influential Four Component Model of Morality (FCM) where he identified four distinct stages from which immoral behaviour could arise: moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral implementation [11] . This model was meant to convey the complexity behind moral behaviour: competence in one stage did not imply competence in another with the result that immoral behaviour could be a consequence of failure at any stage.[13] The above cognitive focus was found to be in contrast to some of the observed behavior. The field of behavioral ethics eventually emerged to study how people actually behaved in situations of moral dilemma.

Later Theoretical & Experimental Research

A major driver behind more modern research on moral blindness is purported to be post World War II sentiments towards people such as Adolf Eichmann (responsible for genocide under the Nazi regime during the Holocaust). His capture and subsequent trial in 1961 had many observers comment on his ordinary nature and appearance which seemed at contrast with his 'evil' behaviour. Hannah Arendt, who was covering the trial for the New Yorker, coined the term the "banality of evil" in reference to Eichmann as during the trial, Eichmann showed no remorse nor did he accept responsibility - he claimed to have done what he was told to do. This is believed to have influenced researchers such as Milgram to study individual behaviour in response to obedience to authority.[14][15][16]

In his famous obedience studies in 1961-62, Milgram had subjects administer electric shocks to a confederate. These studies had been designed to answer questions such as: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" To most people's surprise then, results showed that 65% of the subjects from the original study went ahead to administer the maximum of 450 volts. [17][18]

Later in 1971, ZImbardo in his infamous Stanford Prison Experiment studied showed how “good people behave in pathological ways that are alien to their nature"”[14]. Male undergraduate students at Stanford were assigned to be guards or prisoners in a simulated prison situation to study how far they would go to internalise their roles and obey external orders with shocking results.[19]

Post these findings, researchers began to study moral agency, its exercise and drivers of moral blindness. In his research, Bandura argued that moral disengagement could arise out of various forces (individual, situational or institutional) and alongwith mechanisms such as diffusion of responsibility and disconnected division of tasks could lead to immoral behaviour [20][21][22].

More recent research has led to the development of the concept of 'bounded ethicality" - the idea that people can be unintentionally unethical when it comes to their behaviour as well as judging others' behaviour; something they may realise only on further reflection.  [23][24]. Studies on individual unethicality have also looked at the role of social norms and as well as how we view others' unethical behaviour. [25][26]

Moral blindness has been applied to a range of domains beyond war crimes, politics and administration. A major area of application has been in the field of management and organisational behaviour with research looking at a wide range of topics such as corporate transgressions, business ethics and moral disengagement at work [27][28]. Law and justice is another area where moral blindness, especially when it comes to lawyers, is seen as a concern.[29][30] Some research has also referred to psychopathy being a specific kind of moral blindness although the findings are not conclusive[31].


The field has also been expanded to study broader ideas such as moral blind spots (overestimating ability to act ethically)[32], ethical erosion (gradual decline of ethics over time)[26], and ethical fading (when ethical concerns around a situation 'fade' during decision making)[33].

  1. ^ Palazzo, Guido; Krings, Franciska; Hoffrage, Ulrich (2012-09-01). "Ethical Blindness". Journal of Business Ethics. 109 (3): 323–338. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4. ISSN 1573-0697.
  2. ^ de Klerk, J. J. (2017-04-01). "Nobody is as Blind as Those Who Cannot Bear to See: Psychoanalytic Perspectives on the Management of Emotions and Moral Blindness". Journal of Business Ethics. 141 (4): 745–761. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3114-x. ISSN 1573-0697.
  3. ^ Burin, Frederic S.; Arendt, Hannah (1964-03). "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". Political Science Quarterly. 79 (1): 122. doi:10.2307/2146583. ISSN 0032-3195. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ "Becoming Eichmann: rethinking the life, crimes, and trial of a "desk murderer"". Choice Reviews Online. 44 (02): 44–1163-44-1163. 2006-10-01. doi:10.5860/choice.44-1163. ISSN 0009-4978.
  5. ^ Oberhelman, David D. (2001-06). "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy2001311Principal Editor, Edward N. Zalta. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University 1999; updated every three months. Internet URL: http://plato.stanford.edu, ISSN: 1095-5054 Gratis Last visited: May 2001". Reference Reviews. 15 (6): 9–9. doi:10.1108/rr.2001.15.6.9.311. ISSN 0950-4125. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Tucker, John A. (2015-02-03), "Japanese Neo-Confucian Philosophy", The Oxford Handbook of Japanese Philosophy, Oxford University Press, pp. 272–290, ISBN 978-0-19-994572-6, retrieved 2020-11-30
  7. ^ Cohon, Rachel (2018), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Hume's Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-11-29
  8. ^ García Moriyon (2011). "MORAL BLINDNESS". doi:10.13140/2.1.1717.0885. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ Hare, John (2019), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), "Religion and Morality", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2020-11-29
  10. ^ Cooper, Barton C. (1959-01-01). "The Alleged Indefinability of Good". The Journal of Philosophy. doi:10.2307/2022719. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
  11. ^ a b Bazerman, Max H.; Gino, Francesca (2012-12). "Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty". Annual Review of Law and Social Science. 8 (1): 85–104. doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173815. ISSN 1550-3585. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ "Wayback Machine" (PDF). web.archive.org. 2014-12-17. Retrieved 2020-11-29.
  13. ^ You, Di; Bebeau, Muriel J. (2013-11-01). "The independence of James Rest's components of morality: evidence from a professional ethics curriculum study". Ethics and Education. 8 (3): 202–216. doi:10.1080/17449642.2013.846059. ISSN 1744-9642.
  14. ^ a b Palazzo, Guido; Krings, Franciska; Hoffrage, Ulrich (2012-09-01). "Ethical Blindness". Journal of Business Ethics. 109 (3): 323–338. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4. ISSN 1573-0697.
  15. ^ "Eichmann Trial". encyclopedia.ushmm.org. Retrieved 2020-11-30.
  16. ^ Russell, Nestar John Charles (2011). "Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution". British Journal of Social Psychology. 50 (1): 140–162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205. ISSN 2044-8309.
  17. ^ Schulweis, Harold M. (2009). Conscience : the duty to obey and the duty to disobey. Woodstock, Vt.: Jewish Lights Pub. ISBN 978-1-58023-419-1. OCLC 731340449.
  18. ^ Blass, Thomas (1991-03). "Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (3): 398–413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.398. ISSN 1939-1315. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  19. ^ Bartels, Jared (2019-11-02). "Revisiting the Stanford prison experiment, again: Examining demand characteristics in the guard orientation". The Journal of Social Psychology. 159 (6): 780–790. doi:10.1080/00224545.2019.1596058. ISSN 0022-4545. PMID 30961456.
  20. ^ Bandura, Albert (1999-08-01). "Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (3): 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3. ISSN 1088-8683.
  21. ^ Palazzo, Guido; Krings, Franciska; Hoffrage, Ulrich (2012-09-01). "Ethical Blindness". Journal of Business Ethics. 109 (3): 323–338. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1130-4. ISSN 1573-0697.
  22. ^ Bandura, Albert (2002-06-01). "Selective Moral Disengagement in the Exercise of Moral Agency". Journal of Moral Education. 31 (2): 101–119. doi:10.1080/0305724022014322. ISSN 0305-7240.
  23. ^ Gino, Francesca (2015-06-01). "Understanding ordinary unethical behavior: why people who value morality act immorally". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. Social behavior. 3: 107–111. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.03.001. ISSN 2352-1546.
  24. ^ Chugh, Dolly; Bazerman, Max H.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2005-04-18), "Bounded Ethicality as a Psychological Barrier to Recognizing Conflicts of Interest", Conflicts of Interest, Cambridge University Press, pp. 74–95, ISBN 978-0-521-84439-0, retrieved 2020-11-30
  25. ^ Gino, Francesca; Ayal, Shahar; Ariely, Dan (2009-03-01). "Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel". Psychological Science. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x. ISSN 1467-9280.
  26. ^ a b Gino, Francesca; Moore, Don A.; Bazerman, Max H. (2008). "See No Evil: When We Overlook Other People's Unethical Behavior". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1079969. ISSN 1556-5068.
  27. ^ Bandura, Albert; Caprara, Gian-Vittorio; Zsolnai, Laszlo (2016-07-24). "Corporate Transgressions through Moral Disengagement:". Journal of Human Values. doi:10.1177/097168580000600106.
  28. ^ Barsky, Adam (2011-06-16). "Investigating the Effects of Moral Disengagement and Participation on Unethical Work Behavior". Journal of Business Ethics. 104 (1): 59. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0889-7. ISSN 1573-0697.
  29. ^ Hall, Katherine (2010), Why good intentions are often not enough: The potential for ethical blindness in legal decision-making, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-54653-9, retrieved 2020-11-30
  30. ^ Eldred, Tigran (2012-09-28). "Prescriptions for Ethical Blindness: Improving Advocacy for Indigent Defendants in Criminal Cases". Rochester, NY. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  31. ^ Larsen, Rasmus Rosenberg (2020-09-01). "Psychopathy as moral blindness: a qualifying exploration of the blindness-analogy in psychopathy theory and research". Philosophical Explorations. 23 (3): 214–233. doi:10.1080/13869795.2020.1799662. ISSN 1386-9795.
  32. ^ Bazerman, Max H.; Tenbrunsel, Ann E. (2011-12-31). Blind Spots. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3799-1.
  33. ^ Tenbrunsel, Ann E.; Messick, David M. (2004-06). "Ethical Fading: The Role of Self-Deception in Unethical Behavior". Social Justice Research. 17 (2): 223–236. doi:10.1023/B:SORE.0000027411.35832.53. ISSN 0885-7466. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moral_blindness&oldid=991441998"