Order Ethics—An Experimental Perspective

  • Hannes RuschEmail author
  • Matthias Uhl


In this chapter, we present supporting arguments for the claim that Order Ethics is a school of thought within ethics which is especially open to empirical evidence. With its focus on order frameworks, i.e., incentive structures, Order Ethical advice automatically raises questions on implementability, efficacy, and efficiency of such recommended institutions, all of which are empirical questions to a good extent. We illustrate our arguments by presenting a small selection of experiments from economics that we consider highly informative for Order Ethics. These experiments vary in their details but share one common theme: individual decision-making and its aggregate results are tested against the background of incentive structures. In particular, these studies provide first insights on how unregulated markets influence moral behaviour over time, how trial-and-error experiences convince subjects to migrate to more efficient institutions , and how default rules can influence fundamental choices of people. We argue that Order Ethics, for which implementability of any moral claim is an essential requirement, can largely benefit from the use of such experimental methods. Finally, we suggest the provision of self-commitment devices as one example of smart policy design that avoids paternalistic intrusions into individual liberty.


Incentive Structure Moral Standard Social Dilemma Public Good Game Default Rule 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ashraf, Nava, Dean Karlan, and Wesley Yin. 2006. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 121: 635–672. doi: 10.1162/qjec.2006.121.2.635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely, Dan, and Klaus Wertenbroch. 2002. Procrastination, deadlines, and performance: self-control by precommitment. Psychological Science 13: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardsley, Nicholas, Robin Cubitt, Peter Moffatt, Graham Loomes, Chris Starmer, and Robert Sugden. 2008. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Breyer, Friedrich, and Joachim Weimann. 2015. Of morals, markets and mice: Be careful drawing policy conclusions from experimental findings! European Journal of Political Economy. Available online at
  5. Dreber, Anna, David G. Rand, Drew Fudenberg, and Martin A. Nowak. 2008. Winners don’t punish. Nature 452: 348–351. doi: 10.1038/nature06723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellison, Brenna, Jayson L. Lusk, and David Davis. 2013. Looking at the label and beyond: the effects of calorie labels, health consciousness, and demographics on caloric intake in restaurants. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 10: 21. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falk, Armin, and Nora Szech. 2013. Morals and Markets. Science 340: 707–711. doi: 10.1126/science.1231566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frey, Ulrich J., and Hannes Rusch. 2012. An evolutionary perspective on the long-term efficiency of costly punishment. Biology and Philosophy 27: 811–831. doi: 10.1007/s10539-012-9327-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gächter, Simon, Elke Renner, and Martin Sefton. 2008. The long-run benefits of punishment. Science 322: 1510. doi: 10.1126/science.1164744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gürerk, Özgür, Bernd Irlenbusch, and Bettina Rockenbach. 2006. The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions. Science 312: 108–111. doi: 10.1126/science.1123633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hertwig, Ralph, and Andreas Ortmann. 2001. Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 383–451.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, Eric J., and Daniel Goldstein. 2003. Do defaults save lives? Science 302: 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kant, Immanuel. 2004. Die religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
  14. Knobe, Joshua, and Shaun Nichols (eds.). 2008. Experimental philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Luetge, Christoph. 2012. Fundamentals of Order Ethics: Law, business ethics and the financial crisis. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie Beihefte 130: 11–21.Google Scholar
  16. Luetge, Christoph, and Hannes Rusch. 2013. The systematic place of morals in markets. Science 341: 714. doi: 10.1126/science.341.6147.714-a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Luetge, Christoph, Hannes Rusch, and Matthias Uhl (eds.). 2014. Experimental ethics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Madrian, Brigitte C., and Dennis F. Shea. 2001. The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 1149–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oullier, Olivier. 2013. Behavioural insights are vital to policy-making. Nature 501: 462–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Popper, Karl R. 1966. The open society and its enemies. The spell of Plato, 5th edn, vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rusch, Hannes. 2014. Philosophy as the behaviorist views it? In Experimental ethics, ed. Christoph Luetge, Hannes Rusch, and Matthias Uhl. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Rusch, Hannes, Christoph Luetge, and Eckart Voland. 2014. Experimentelle und Evolutionäre Ethik: Eine neue Synthese in der Moralphilosophie? In Bereichsethiken im interdisziplinären Dialog, ed. Matthias Maring, 163–179. Karlsruhe, Baden: KIT Scientific Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Schelling, Thomas C. 2006. Micromotives and macrobehaviour. New York: W.W Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, N.Craig, Daniel G. Goldstein, and Eric J. Johnson. 2013. Choice without awareness: Ethical and policy implications of defaults. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 32(2): 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sneddon, Andrew. 2009. Normative ethics and the prospects of an empirical contribution to assessment of moral disagreement and moral realism. The Journal of Value Inquiry 43: 447–455. doi: 10.1007/s10790-009-9164-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stein, Edward. 1996. Without good reason. The rationality debate in philosophy and cognitive science. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Uhl, Matthias. 2011. Do self-committers mind other-imposed commitment? An experiment on weak paternalism. Rationality, Markets, and Morals 2: 13–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Experimental and Applied PsychologyVU AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Chair of Business EthicsTU MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations