I've gotten to wonder if people in positions of power or prestige tend to rationalize the impropriety of unethical conduct? What do you think?
Do people in "high places" tend to rationalize improper conduct?
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
I don't think someone has to be in a high place to rationalize unethical conduct, but it seems to me that the rationalization tends to be a little more sophisticated an creative with people in high places, and a little more transparent and unacceptable in others.
Not just people in high places, it's pretty much the majority of people.
The difference is in the magnitude of the behaviour.
Speeding, cheating on spouses, fraud, petty theft, assault, murder, drinking and driving, conflict of interest...if you look carefully, you'll find most people are somewhere on that line.
The difference is in the magnitude of the behaviour.
Speeding, cheating on spouses, fraud, petty theft, assault, murder, drinking and driving, conflict of interest...if you look carefully, you'll find most people are somewhere on that line.
OK, Speeding in a lot of cases is accidental, so set that one aside. Most "average Joes" recognize fraud and theft for what they are and don't get involved in it- but higher echelons regard it more as entitlement. Cheating on spouses crosses all classes as does murder.
Don't want to miss out on their share of the booty that was confiscated during the shift.
How do you know they were heading to the station and not to the doughnut shop? They KNOW when a fresh batch comes out of the deep frier.
People in high places tend to be Alpha types so they already know that what ever they do is justifiable. At least to them selves.
I don't think it's limited to people in hih places only. Just look at corrupt polititians. They're the ones most likely to win an election because they give the majority (let's call it the mob) what it wants. Don't you love democracy?
A perfect example is Ontario's segregated school laws. Even the UNHCR has criticized it as being contrary to international human rights laws. We are busy fighting wars abroad suposedly just wars, meanwhile we ourselves are violating international standards, yet the very party upholding this discrimination formed the government. It's not like they hid this from the people. On the contrary, they anounced this discriminatory policy from the hill tops precicely to get votes.
So no, I don't think this is limited ot people in high places.
I don't think he justified his behaviour at all. When asked why he did these things, he admitted he didn't know. Also, his evident shame and quick confession and admission with no attempt to defend his actions shows that he did not even try to rationalize it. Or if he did, he failed to convincce even himself. That would be a bad example.
To me, rationalizing improper conduct suggests trying to argue a case in its favour and then standing up for it and defending it. Williams did not do that in the least.
Now, taking the example of the separate school system above, that's a clear case of religious discrimination blatantly presented to the public and actively defended on constitutional rather than moral grounds.
The problem starts with the political parties who put candidates forward.
Next the media, who don't take a look at who the are speaking about in
the pages and on the airwaves.
The public listens only to party name and vote like sheep for their preference.
Once elected the temptation begins and you soon see at test of morals and
character. This is not only for politicians, this extends into companies and
other organizations that people get elected to. Think about it, you have money
invested in the future of your pension fund and how many vote or vote by the
proxy system for the board of directors that you investment is going to?
These people in elected places gain their experience and define their view and
moral and ethics code, in civic politics and working for organizations and on the
boards of directors of various companies, or as managers of their businesses.
How have they conducted themselves until they are nominated to run for office?
I have be elected to organization and appointed to Boards of Directors. I have been
tempted to make deals and I sometimes in making a deal I have had to really
think about what I should do. How do you keep from thinking you are entitled to
just do what you please?
1 Know who you are
2 Remember how you got to where you are.
3 Do you want some unsavory act associated with you family name.
4 Learn to stand up for what you believe, it still counts after you are elected.
5 Understand that improvement comes one step at a time.
6 Change evolves, quick change is often not progress or positive change.
7 Never engage in a policy or a deal that will destroy your reputation and that cause
8 Every person has an inner voice it is called your conscience, if it twinges don't do it.
Some people lose track of who they are, they look in the mirror and see someone who is now
in power and they are bullet proof. I am on a Provincial Executive of an Organization. I also
sit on two Boards of Directors of companies. I can honestly say, I can sleep at night with a
clear conscience. I will compromise, and work cooperatively with others, however I refuse to
engage in negative and destructive or dishonest practices. I would rather lose than do something
dishonorable. I have taken positions that are unpopular to be sure, what is best for the organization
is paramount, as long as it is for the betterment of the people I serve and not just for me.
We as citizens must ensure people in elected office such as provincial, municipal and federal
office are honest. Also those who manage our organizations and boards of companies.
Wen we quit paying attention we all lose. They rationalize in many cases what they think you will
put up with, that is why citizens must be involved at all levels of the process of public life.
Next the media, who don't take a look at who the are speaking about in
the pages and on the airwaves.
The public listens only to party name and vote like sheep for their preference.
Once elected the temptation begins and you soon see at test of morals and
character. This is not only for politicians, this extends into companies and
other organizations that people get elected to. Think about it, you have money
invested in the future of your pension fund and how many vote or vote by the
proxy system for the board of directors that you investment is going to?
These people in elected places gain their experience and define their view and
moral and ethics code, in civic politics and working for organizations and on the
boards of directors of various companies, or as managers of their businesses.
How have they conducted themselves until they are nominated to run for office?
I have be elected to organization and appointed to Boards of Directors. I have been
tempted to make deals and I sometimes in making a deal I have had to really
think about what I should do. How do you keep from thinking you are entitled to
just do what you please?
1 Know who you are
2 Remember how you got to where you are.
3 Do you want some unsavory act associated with you family name.
4 Learn to stand up for what you believe, it still counts after you are elected.
5 Understand that improvement comes one step at a time.
6 Change evolves, quick change is often not progress or positive change.
7 Never engage in a policy or a deal that will destroy your reputation and that cause
8 Every person has an inner voice it is called your conscience, if it twinges don't do it.
Some people lose track of who they are, they look in the mirror and see someone who is now
in power and they are bullet proof. I am on a Provincial Executive of an Organization. I also
sit on two Boards of Directors of companies. I can honestly say, I can sleep at night with a
clear conscience. I will compromise, and work cooperatively with others, however I refuse to
engage in negative and destructive or dishonest practices. I would rather lose than do something
dishonorable. I have taken positions that are unpopular to be sure, what is best for the organization
is paramount, as long as it is for the betterment of the people I serve and not just for me.
We as citizens must ensure people in elected office such as provincial, municipal and federal
office are honest. Also those who manage our organizations and boards of companies.
Wen we quit paying attention we all lose. They rationalize in many cases what they think you will
put up with, that is why citizens must be involved at all levels of the process of public life.
Russell admitted having the problem since his 20s, but he didn't act on it until he was in his 40s, shortly after his appointment to the position he held when arrested. Something lined up in his life such that he acted on his urges, and he definitely thought he was getting away with it during the initial part of his interview (interrogation). From having read the transcript of the questioning, and watched the program on the news, it doesn't seem he was the least bit remorseful. His only objective was to spare his wife a police search of the house they had moved into 3 days earlier. Williams also couldn't deny that he would have done it again. He rationalized in his mind that he could get away with it, and that he was above suspicion. Torturing one of the women for 24 hours, taking her to his own residence to continue the torture, and murdering her in his living room is clearly a statement that he was rationalizing improper behavior.
You're right. He'd rationalized that he could get away with his behaviour. But he did not rationalize the behaviour itself. He'd recognized from the start that it was wrong and that's why he tried to hide it.
To me, rationaizing behaviour means trying to explain it as virtuous. As such, it's not a behaviour you shamefully hide, but one you openly defend. Once caught, he made no effort to rationalize or defend his behaviour. He accepted it and admited that it was shameful.
I could care less if they are held morally responsible. I want heads to roll legally. Enough is enough.
What sort of unethical behavior can be rationalized as being correct and acceptable? It's unethical to lie and the liar knows it, but the liar will rationalize the unethical behavior if he or she thinks he or she can get away with it. Those in positions of power are more inclined to think that they can get away with it because they are powerful and have the right to use information as power. Misinformation keeps the less powerful in their place.
Unethical behaviour can easily be rationalized, defended and promoted to the unthinking mob.
Take for instance the War on Iraq. Hussain had nada to do with Bin Laden. No problem. He had WMDs. Lack of proof? No problem. Do you want to be responsible when Hussain nukes another country? So we'd better attack now andlet the chipsfall where they may. The war is illegal? No problem. It's a just cause.
We could take Ontario's school system as an example too. Religious discrimination? Oh, well do you not respect the contstitution? it's been like that since the beginning. Have you no sense of history? Do you not respect our traditions? You'rs asking us to change the constitution. Have you no sense of pride in your country?
You see how it works. No that's rationalization.
Roman, French, or US style>
Hmmm.. Roman ended up a little nasty. French republicanism didn't stop imperialism, naither did the US by the way. In the end, it really doesn't matter what kind of system you have.