Resistance and Rationalization
Psychological Blocks and Logical Fallacies Inhibiting Moral Growth
Compiled by Dr. Jan Garrett
This version last modified on March 30, 2005.
Defense Mechanisms Used to Resist Thinking Ethically
Resistances to Ethical Thinking
Judith A. Boss, in her Ethics for Life, 3rd edition (McGraw-Hill, 2004) discusses defense mechanisms, which are "psychological tools for coping with difficult situations." Healthy mechanisms, she writes, include "logical analysis, objectivity, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, and suppression of harmful emotional responses."
But there are also unhealthy defense mechanisms, which she collectively describes as resistance. These include
ignorance, of the sort that occurs when "we avoid learning about particular issues because we just do not want to know"; we fallaciously reason that not knowing excuses us from having to think about the issue or take a stand.
avoidance. This occurs when, instead of trying to meet persons who have different points of view than we already have, we avoid certain people and associate only with those who agree with us.
denial. This refers to a willingness to be self-deceived. Examples include Germans during WWII who implicitly supported the war effort by refusing to think about the evidence they already had of the Nazi government's cruelty. Mothers who suspect that incest is going on in their family but convince themselves that such a terrible thing could not be happening are engaging in denial. Many examples from American history and contemporary politics might be added.
anger. This refers to getting angry with people who present challenges to our views. This defense mechanism is especially effective in preventing open expression of disagreement when the resistant person has greater social, political, or physical power. Such a person may use violence or imprisonment, or threat of either, to prevent challenges from arising.
clichés. These include pat phrases like "don't force your views on me" or "it's all relative" or "things always work out for the best." Judith Boss says that the habitual use of such sayings prevents people from seriously reflecting upon moral issues.
conformity. This refers to going along with the group rather than risking rejection.
pseudo-struggling. "I'm struggling [with the issue]" This phrase expresses unhealthy resistance when it describes a permanent state of mind, a way of justifying not taking action that might cost one something.
distraction. This refers to using TV or loud music, drinking alcohol or taking drugs, partying, becoming a workaholic in one's profession, and even shopping as a substitute for thinking about moral issues.
Michael Josephson, in Making Ethical Decisions (available online at www.josephsoninstitute.org/), lists the following rationalizations of less than adequate moral decisions: Rationalizations
If it's necessary, it's ethical. "Necessity" in this case refers to the connection between means and ends as in. "If I am to increase my firm's income, then I have to do this."
Such end-justifies-the-means reasoning treats nonmoral goals as moral requirements. And frequently it is mistaken: maybe there's another way to promote the nonmoral goal.
If it's legally permissible, it's proper. The fact that an action is not illegal does not imply that it is the morally best action all things considered. Among the legal actions, some may be much better than others from a moral perspective.
It's just part of the job This cliché reflects the attempt to wall off one's professional or business life from the rest of one's life, as if one could violate common recognized moral principles in business life that one would never violate in personal life. But, as Josephson indicates, everyone's first job [=vocation, calling] is to be a good person.
It's all for a good cause People imagine their goals to be noble ones and adopt an "anything is permissible" approach when it comes to means.
I was just doing it for you This excuse is used sometime to justify nondisclosure when disclosure is morally required on the ground that the person to whom the information or judgment should be rendered will be emotionally distressed if she or he finds out.
I'm just fighting fire with fire This attempts to justify lying to people who lie, breaking promises to people who break promises, and so forth. It assumes that one may deal immorally with those who are morally imperfect themselves. But there's no moral justification for doing so.
It doesn't hurt anyone In this view it's all right to violate a moral principle if there is no obvious and immediate harm. We sometimes hear that an immoral action has not killed anybody.
Everyone's doing it People fail to distinguish cultural or organization behavior patterns from moral principles. There is also an implicit assumption that the speaker is safe from criticism if everyone else is doing the same type of misdeed.
It's OK if I don't gain personally Is personal gain the only criterion for moral wrongdoing? Many improper actions have been done out of excessive concern for an organization or a nationality or a loved one.
I've got it coming With this cliché, the person who violates a rule justifies his doing so by reasoning that what he is personally gaining merely compensation for all his "hard work," work for which he has been, on his own judgment, insufficiently rewarded.
I can still be objective Josephson writes, "By definition if you've lost your objectivity you cannot see that you've lost your objectivity! [This line] also underestimates the subtle ways in which gratitude . . . and the anticipation of future favors affect judgment. Does the person providing you with the benefit believe that it will in no way affect your judgment? Would the person still provide the benefit if you were in no position to help?"