Advertisement

Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 543–549 | Cite as

Science, Human Nature, and a New Paradigm for Ethics Education

  • Marc Lampe
Original Paper

Abstract

For centuries, religion and philosophy have been the primary basis for efforts to guide humans to be more ethical. However, training in ethics and religion and imparting positive values and morality tests such as those emanating from the categorical imperative and the Golden Rule have not been enough to protect humankind from its bad behaviors. To improve ethics education educators must better understand aspects of human nature such as those that lead to “self-deception” and “personal bias.” Through rationalizations, faulty reasoning and hidden bias, individuals trick themselves into believing there is little wrong with their own unethical behavior. The application of science to human nature offers the possibility of improving ethics education through better self-knowledge. The author recommends a new paradigm for ethics education in contemporary modern society. This includes the creation of a new field called “applied evolutionary neuro-ethics” which integrates science and social sciences to improve ethics education. The paradigm can merge traditional thinking about ethics from religious and philosophical perspectives with new ideas from applied evolutionary neuro-ethics.

Keywords

Ethics Education Human nature Science Religion Philosophy 

References

  1. Anand, V., Ashforth, B. E., & Joshi, M. (2004). Business as usual: The acceptance and perpetuation of corruption in organizations. Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, J. (1964). Blues for Mr. Charlie. New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar
  3. Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M. H., & Chugyh, D. (2003). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 56–64.Google Scholar
  4. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Orlando: Harcourt.Google Scholar
  6. Conroy, S. J., & Emerson, T. L. N. (2004). Business ethics and religion: Religiosity as a predictor of ethical awareness among students. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 383–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dawkins, R. (1989). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Everett, J. (2007). Ethics education and the role of the symbolic market. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2(12), 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallese, V., Keysers, C., & Rizzolatti, G. (2004). A unifying view of the basis of social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 8(9), 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilbert, D. (2006, April 16). I’m o.k., you’re biased. New York Times, Sec. 4, p. 12.Google Scholar
  12. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–2108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108, 814–834.Google Scholar
  16. Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Myers, D. G. (2002). Intuition: Its powers and perils. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Rizzolatti, G. (2005). The mirror neuron system and its function in humans. Anatomy and Embryology, 210(5–6), 419–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rizzolatti, G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2005). Mirrors in the mind. Scientific American, 295(5), 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rodgers, W., & Gago, S. (2006). Biblical scriptures underlying six ethical models influencing organizational practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, D. L. (2004). Why we lie: The evolutionary roots of deception and the unconscious mind. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  23. Sternberg, R. (2011). Ethics from thought to action. Educational Leadership, 68, 34–39.Google Scholar
  24. von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  26. Zarembo, A. (2004, July 15). A theater of inquiry and evil. Los Angeles Times, p. A1.Google Scholar
  27. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business AdministrationUniversity of San DiegoSan DiegoUSA

Personalised recommendations