Advertisement

Order Ethics and Situationist Psychology

  • Michael von GrundherrEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

We tend to belief that people lie because they are dishonest or that they give money to the poor because they are generous. So-called situationists hold that explanations of this kind are unjustified. Based on a series of experiments, they argue that counter to intuitions situations are important determinants of human behaviour, while individual traits are less influential. Order ethics makes a related normative claim, arguing that moral behaviour can only be demanded in certain types of (institutionally shaped) situations. I will argue that situationist social psychology can indeed provide empirical backup for order ethics.

Keywords

Moral Disengagement Moral Behaviour Moral Rule Individual Disposition Psychological Disposition 
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.

References

  1. Bandura, Albert, Claudio Barbaranelli, Gian Vittorio Caprara, and Concetta Pastorelli. 1996. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 364–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, John A. 2007. Social psychological approaches to consciousness. The Cambridge handbook of consciousness: 555–569.Google Scholar
  3. Burger, J.M. 2009. Replicating milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist 64: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carlson, M., V. Charlin, and N. Miller. 1988. Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark, Russell D., and Larry E. Word. 1974. Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 29: 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darley, J.M., and C.D. Batson. 1973. “ From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Darley, J.M., and Bibb Latané. 1968. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 377–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dretske, Fred. 1993. Mental events as structuring causes of behavior. In Mental causation, ed. John Heil, and Alfred R. Mele, 121–136. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fischer, P., J.I. Krueger, T. Greitemeyer, C. Vogrincic, A. Kastenmüller, D. Frey, M. Heene, M. Wicher, and M. Kainbacher. 2011. The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin 137: 517–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaus, Gerald F. 2011. The order of public reason; A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. 1. publ. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Von Grundherr, Michael. 2007. Moral aus Interesse: Metaethik der Vertragstheorie. 1st ed. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  12. Haney, C., C. Banks, and P. Zimbardo. 1973. Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. International Journal Of Criminology And Penology 1: 69–97. doi: 10.1037/h0076835.Google Scholar
  13. Harman, Gilbert. 1999. Moral philosophy meets social psychology: Virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99: 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haslam, S.Alexander. 2006. Rethinking the psychology of tyranny: The BBC prison study. British Journal of Social Psychology 45: 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haslam, S.Alexander, and Stephen D. Reicher. 2012. Contesting the “Nature” Of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology 10: e1001426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Isen, A.M., and P.F. Levin. 1972. Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 384–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krueger, Joachim I. 2009. A componential model of situation effects, person effects, and situation-by-person interaction effects on social behavior. Journal of Research in Personality 43: 127–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krueger, Joachim I., and A.L. Massey. 2009. A rational reconstruction of misbehavior. Social Cognition 27: 786–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luetge, Christoph. 2013. The Idea of a Contractarian Business Ethics. In Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics, ed. Christoph Luetge, 647–658. Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lüttke, Hans B. 2004. Experimente unter dem Milgram-Paradigma. Gruppendynamik und Organisationsberatung 35: 431–464. doi: 10.1007/s11612-004-0040-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Milgram, Stanley. 1963. Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 67: 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinker, Steven. 2011. The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  23. Ross, Lee. 1977. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, 10:173–221. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Slater, Mel, Angus Antley, Adam Davison, David Swapp, Christoph Guger, Chris Barker, Nancy Pistrang, and Maria V. Sanchez-Vives. 2006. A Virtual reprise of the stanley milgram obedience experiments. PLoS ONE 1: e39. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thornberg, Robert, and Tomas Jungert. 2013. Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence 36: 475–483. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Neurophilosophy and Ethics of NeuroscienceLMU MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations