Psychological Considerations in Ethical Decision Making
In resolving ethical dilemmas, I often ask students simply “What Would You Do?” Typically, students will rely on philosophical reasoning to respond. Briefly, they might refer to Utilitarianism, which balances harms and benefits and chooses the best alternative that maximizes the net benefits to the stakeholders. One problem with this form of ethical reasoning is the harms and benefits are not always easy to identify and value. Also, regardless of the net benefits, evaluating the rights of the stakeholders might lead to a different conclusion.
Categorical Imperative
Deontology, or Kantian Rights Theory, evaluates the rights of stakeholders and duty of the decision maker to respect those rights in forming the best possible decision. One way to evaluate is by applying the “Categorical Imperative.” It holds that a person should “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become universal law.” The ‘maxim’ of our acts can be thought of as the intention behind our acts. The maxim answers the question: What am I doing and why? In other words, moral intention is a driver of ethical action.
The Categorical Imperative is a useful perspective. It answers the following: How would I want others to decide the issue in similar situations for similar reasons? If I can confidently answer that question, then my decision would meet the universality standard.
Another explanation of rights is that there is a difference between what we have a right to do and what the right thing to do is. A classic example is whether it is right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is generally not protected under free speech laws. While there is no blanket law making it illegal to yell “fire” in such a setting, doing so without cause can lead to legal consequences due to the potential for causing panic and harm. So, few would argue that yelling “fire” is wrong, unless a fire exists. The net harms of yelling “fire” when there is none far exceeds any benefits that might accrue to the person yelling the word out.
Should versus Would
The best-selling author and ethicist, Bruce Weinstein, discusses the difference between should and would in making ethical decisions. Weinstein’s perspective follows.
“What should you do?” is an ethical question. We can use ethical reasoning to help come to a decision. Weinstein explains that ethics help us to understand whether we have made the right decision. “What would you do?” is a psychological question. Psychology explains why we do what we do. In other words, even if we believe it’s right to behave a certain way, we may not do so because of pressures that exist to do otherwise.
Think about a student who knows a classmate has cheated on an exam. The right thing to do is inform the instructor. Why? Because such cheating negates the level playing field that should exist when evaluating student work. The cheater has an unfair advantage over those who completed the exam honestly. So, the answer to the question of what would you do recognizes that one’s mindset could get in the way of proper behavior. The student may be psychologically torn from acting on the right behavior to avoid getting a friend in trouble.
Cognitive Dissonance
The term “Cognitive Dissonance” supports the should versus would perspectives. Cognitive Dissonance is a term first coined by Leon Festinger in 1956. It means how we think we should behave is often different from how we decide to behave. The inconsistency between our thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes and our behavior creates the need to resolve contradictory or conflicting beliefs, values, and perceptions. Festinger posits that dissonance can be reduced in one of three ways: (1) change one or more of the attitudes, behavior, or beliefs so as to make the relationship between the two elements a consonant one; (2) acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs; or (3) reduce the importance of the cognitions (beliefs, attitudes).
One way to enhance a student’s decision about what they would do is to ask: What must you do? This makes it more likely that the answer is genuine and not driven by the student’s desire to tell you what you want to hear. The ‘must’ forces students to consider whether there are any policies (i.e., whistleblowing) that must be complied with including conforming to a code of ethics. It also makes students think about whether any laws or regulations exist that affect decision making.
Conclusions
Differentiating between how we “ought” to behave and how we “actually” behave is no small feat. In addition to the pressures that exist, the culture of an organization could sway decision making in one direction or another. The key to doing the right thing is to have the courage of your convictions. We must stand up and be counted when resolving unethical issues that compromise the values underlying ethical behavior in life and in the workplace.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo on September 1, 2026. You can contact Steve at: smintz@calpoly.edu. Visit his website to learn more about his activities.