What does
intelligence have to do with ethics and moral reasoning? Ethics can be seen as
a value system that governs the actions of both an individual and a group.
Through the use of such ethical systems a level of commonality and trust is
formed that encourages stronger business associations and efficient economic
interactivity. However, why some are more ethically driven than others depends
in part on their cognitive and social intelligence abilities. Such abilities
start very young in a person’s life and are influenced by the environment. Ethical
development is a concept of nature and nurture as superior to situations where
nature versus nurture takes precedence.
Moral reasoning is closely
associated with the development of intelligence and emotional sensibilities. It is
believed that …”individuals with
extraordinary developed intelligence and creativity are the most valuable gift
that humankind has…” Kholodnaya, 2007). The more capable a person is to
reflect on their behavior and its consequences the more likely they will be
able to choose alternative courses of actions.
These intelligences
are seen early in life based upon a person’s sensitivity, motivation,
and character (Tirri, 2011). In order for such moral reasoning to work in an
optimal manner the environment must reward and encourage such behaviors. Thus, environment
and reasoning are two different sides of the same coin. It is not enough to
reason and understand the solutions to moral problems if the environment is
hostile to the concept of greater responsibility.
It is often this
environment that either strengthens or diminishes such behavior. This is why it
is important for education, colleges, legislation and leadership figures to
encourage ethical behavior from the very beginning. There are differences in
the ability to understand and act upon such issues. When the environment is
hostile to basic ethical values the social structure and expectations
discourage appropriate behaviors making them less common in the population.
Social problems are
not easy to define and can be quite difficult for some to understand. Developed
people have more ability to use social intelligence, find definitions to
problems, planning social strategies, and anticipating social consequences
(Lopez, 2007). This is often based in their cognitive and emotional
advancements from childhood that encourages the ability to analyze the subtle
nature of many of these events and factors.
An ethical model as
proposed by Steinberg (2009) helps to formulate how ethics works both within an
organization and society at large. It is through these ethics that people contribute
to the general functioning and efficiency of society by ensuring that rules
apply the same across different spectrums of social structure.
(1)
recognize that there is an event to which to react;
(2)
define the event as having an ethical dimension;
(3)
decide that the ethical dimension is of sufficient significance to merit an
ethics-guided
response;
(4) take responsibility for generating an
ethical solution to the problem;
(5)
figure out what abstract ethical rule(s) might apply to the problem;
(6)
decide how these abstract ethical rules actually apply to the problem to
suggest
a
concrete solution;
(7)
enact the ethical solution, meanwhile possibly counteracting contextual forces
that
might lead one not to act in an ethical manner;
(8) acting upon the
situation.
Before one can act
they must perceive that there is an event occurring. This can be difficult if
one’s perceptions are focused narrowly and tightly on one’s current happenings
and needs. The more open-minded a person is the more likely they are able to
notice, contemplate, and take actions on such events. A narrow-minded filter
is going to leave one so heavily focused on their own needs that a wider
responsibility doesn't come into one’s conscious.
This blocking of
moral thinking is a result of an arrogance in oneself that does not allow a
person to empathize or understand the impact of their behavior on others. Ethical
disengagement is a result of removing oneself from ethical responsibilities
that are the result of a number of fallacies. These fallacies come from unrealistic
optimism, egocentrism, false omniscience (never learning from one’s mistakes),
false omnipotence, false invulnerability (Sternberg, 2008).
Cultures that
encourage winning at all costs may also encourage their collective loss. It is
important to put this competitive need into the framework of personal and
collective advancement. Ethics helps one see how choices impact people beyond themselves
and create expectations within the environment. When the damage and stakes
become large enough ethical choices should kick in as the most logical (i.e.
moral reasoning). When moral reasoning is ignored events such as Enron, the saving
and loan scandals that led to the Great Depression, and the athletic doping incident become
too commonplace.
Therefore, an ethical
event must also be of significance to encourage a person to respond to it
appropriately. A small or insignificant event is unlikely to create much of an
ethical or moral dilemma. It must be worth someone taking on the effort to find
a solution to the problem by analyzing possibilities. In other words, it must
be big enough to grab your attention. The more complex the problem, the more
avenues of analysis are needed before conclusions can be drawn. It takes a
level of motivation to pull all of this off.
To have a solution doesn't necessary do any good without some action. These abstract solutions are
often narrowed to concrete solutions which are then viewed in terms of the
counteracting contextual forces to determine the risks involved. Once the
risks, solution, and nature of the problem are solidified an act can be
forthcoming that puts the solution into motion. The success of that solution
depends on the ability to move through the communication patterns and cognitive
processes of stakeholders.
Intelligence,
sensibilities, and the environment all work together to encourage ethical
actions. Even though each person has the ability to morally reason it is those
with the highest intellectual abilities that can reflect on the possible
outcomes and impact of their behaviors. Those
who cannot reason beyond themselves, have little motivation beyond their own
needs, and are incapable of considering the consequences of their behavior are
likely to be either indifferent to ethical violations within the workplace or
the perpetrators and promoters of such behaviors.
Kholodnaya, M.
(2007). The psychology of intelligence.
Moscow: IPRAN Press.
Lopez, V. (2007).
La inteligencia social: aportes desde su studio en ninos y adolescents con
atlas capacidades congnitivas. Psykhe, 16
(2).
Sternberg,
R.J. (2008). The WICS approach to leadership: Stories of leadership and the
structures and processes that support them. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(3),
360–371.
Sternberg, R.
(2009).Ethics and giftedness. High
Ability Studies, 20 (2).
Tirri, K. (2009).
Combining excellence and ethics: implications for moral education for the
gifted. Roeper Review, 33 (1).
