>>What is society's role in making ethical citizens? There's a contradiction between
maintaining a social system based on trust but also that allows for deception in certain
circumstances. Society must be based on truthfulness in order
for deception to work, which makes it a paradox between truth and deception.
Some people think that we're in a state of moral crisis, that the values of our society
are eroding. One way to think about that fact is to ask how prevalent is deception? Many
researchers have tried to study this, but it's proven difficult to measure. Are we honest
when people ask us questions about deception? Do we all consider the same behavior to be
deceptive? This is especially important when we think about different cultures and the
role of deception because not all cultures consider the same thing to be lies.
Usually people try and study deception prevalence through what is known as a diary study.
You have people keep track of their lies throughout the day and try and look at how many times
people lie in a day. Those studies have shown that we lie about one to two times on average.
But that some people are what are known as prolific liars. They lie a lot more than the
average person.
Another way to try and understand prevalence of deception is to look at behavior surveys.
Ninety-two percent of college students admit lying to a romantic partner, but they may
not always think about certain things as lies, especially if they're altruistic lies or lies
that benefit the other person.
Another way to study prevalence is through something called an attitude survey. In attitude
surveys, recently 43% of high school students think you must lie or cheat in order to succeed
in life, and 83% of undergraduates said they would lie in order to get a job.
Serota and colleagues conducted a National Survey through the internet of a thousand
US Sixty percent said they had not lied in the past 24 hours. Of the 40% who had lied:
14% had told just one lie; 8.8% had told two lies; and only 1.5% of the sample told 15
or more lies, which means that half of all lies were told by just 5% of the sample. That
means that we have a few prolific liars but the average person doesn't lie very much at
all. This suggests that perhaps we're not in a state of moral decay, but rather some
people have different ethical standards about deception. In order to understand this further,
let's talk about the four different perspectives of ethics in deception.
The first perspective of deception says lying is always immoral—philosophers and theologians
like St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas have long promoted this view of deception. If you
believe in the Ten Commandments then you believe bearing false witness is a sin. Thus, you
should never ever lie. Other people believe that we should never lie because it's harmful
to both the liar and the deceived, and it breaks down social harmony and encourages
more lying. Research by Peterson as well as Sagarin, Rhoads and Cialdini suggest that
even when lies aren't detected, they can harm relationships because the liar starts to assume
that other people are lying too and trust is eroded. So this first perspective of lying
would say that lying is always wrong.
The second perspective of deception says lying is acceptable but only as a last resort only.
Sissela Bok promotes this view in her book Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private
Life. Like the "lying is always immoral" view, this view assumes that lying is wrong and
is bad both for the liar and society. However, a world without lies is impossible and probably
not very desirable, as you can see in the film The Invention of Lying with Ricky Gervaise.
Bok suggests that lying can be right if it's justifiable (to others and not just yourself).
If there is no way the truth could accomplish the same goals, she would argue that the lying
is appropriate because its the last resort.
The third perspective of deception says lying is acceptable when it serves your purpose.
Five hundred years ago, Machiavelli wrote a book called "The Prince" in which he laid
out his strategy for leadership. He said a leader must use strategic manipulation to
serve his own purpose but must make himself appear honest and trustworthy. His name has
become synonymous with manipulation and a lack of empathy for others. In the film Wall
Street, Gordon Gecko, played by Michael Douglas, personifies this view as the "buyer beware"
philosophy when he preys on unsuspecting investors. Unlike Bok's view, which says that lies have
to be justifiable to other reasonable people, this view assumes that lies only have to be
justifiable to the liar.
The fourth perspective of deception says lying is sometimes ok and sometimes not. This view
suggests that lies themselves are neither right nor wrong in and of themselves. They
are ethically neutral until you consider two factors: the intention of the liar and the
consequences of the lie. Lies are often divided between those that are self-serving or those
that are altruistic or other-serving. When asked why they lie to their close relationship
partners, most people say their lies are meant to protect their partners' feelings, build
or maintain their partners' self-esteem, to show concern for their partners, and to help
their partners attain their goals. They might also lie to avoid conflict or protect their
relationship. But that doesn't mean that those partners always think those lies are altruistic,
by the way. The intent of the deceiver in these situations is generally good, but the
intent of the deceiver only goes so far, because even if the deceiver has a noble intent, if
someone is hurt by the lie, then we would not consider the lie to be right under this
perspective. Consider an extreme example of an altruistic lie. Anne Frank was a young
Jewish girl who fled Nazi-controlled Germany with her family to the Netherlands. Her father's
Dutch co-workers risked their own lives to hide the Frank family from the Nazis. Most
of us would consider this deception to be noble, good, and altruistic. They had the
intent to save lives and the consequence was indeed that many lives were saved. Her diary
was published after her death and has been made into plays and movies celebrating their
noble act.
When we consider these four ethical perceptions about deception, we can think about how should
we will judge deception overall. Knapp suggests that we should tell the truth most of the
time and whenever possible. If we're not lying, we don't have to deal with a lot of these
ethical considerations. Second of all, he says we should consider alternatives to lying,
other ways to accomplish the same goal without actually deceiving someone. Third, we should
consider the consequences for discovered deception. What are the impacts of our lie on other people?
Fourth, he says that we should consider what we all know as the "Golden Rule." Do unto
others as you would have others do unto you. If you wouldn't want people lying to you about
something then you shouldn't lie to them. Fifth, he says that he also has suggestions
for the lie detectors as well. Don't invade privacy or break laws when trying to detect
deception. You might want to read your friend's email to see if he or she has lied to you,
but that's not an ethical way to detect deception. Find alternatives that don't compromise your
own ethics.
So, as a society how do we create honest citizens? One way is through legislation. We can make
laws to try and legislate ethical behavior. Universities like ours have honor codes. Professional
organizations have ethical guidelines. We try and teach people about ethics through
the rules and laws that we create. We also do it by teaching our children ethics. Parents
can serve as role models and reward truthfulness. When you have ethical guidelines for your
family, those can translate into the larger society.
Lets look at an example of an honor code. The University of Oklahoma has an Integrity
Pledge, and they have their integrity guidelines on their website. They've created a student
guide for integrity and ethical behavior. They have an integrity council that serves
as an arbitrator in certain instances where someones ethical behavior has been questioned.
What is the Purpose of the Integrity Council? To AFFIRM the academic integrity of the students
of the University of Oklahoma. To ASPIRE to an environment of integrity created
and upheld by the actions and values of students. To RECOGNIZE the urgency of a commitment to
the highest standards of Academic Integrity. To RESOLVE to make academic integrity a pride
for the students of the University of Oklahoma.
A second example: is the Institutional Review Board (known as the IRB). There's a link to
this website on our module as well. The Institutional Review Board is designed to protect the rights
of human subjects who participate in research. All research which may result in a publication
or a public presentation, that involves human subjects or use of data on human subjects
that will be performed by researchers at the University of Oklahoma must be reviewed prior
to initiation. The IRB looks out for the ethics of researchers and protects human subjects
from risks they might incur during research.
So in this module we've covered the different ethical perspectives that you use when you're
trying to evaluate deceptive communication, we've talked about examples of different ethical
guidelines that people might use, and studies of research on the prevalence of ethical behavior.
I would like you to think a little bit more about your ethics and how they pertain to
your judgments of human deception.