Why Everyone You Know Is A Bad Person

If you’re like me, you’re a bad person. You, me, and everybody we know are bad people. The guy who helps with Habitat for Humanity: bad person. The teacher who put in extra hours after school to get you through algebra: bad person. Even your neighbor who volunteers as the prison librarian and bakes you brownies: super bad person. All of these seemingly nice people are secretly terrible people. At least, they’re not good people. Let me explain.

There is a theoretical framework called “moral balancing” that is used to explain some of the conflicting ethical behaviors out there like how Janice from H.R. can help out at the soup kitchen but always takes home extra cookies from the break room. The framework suggests that every time we do something we see as moral or ethically good, we give ourselves permission to do something unethical elsewhere in our lives. The more “good” points we earn, the more “bad” activities we can participate in.

Gert Cornelissen led three studies at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain to test the moral balancing framework. Subjects were given money and different scenarios from which they could decide how to dole out the money to their friends. According to the study, if the subject was reminded of previous good works, they were more inclined to “cheat” the scenario in their own favor. They had earned enough good points and this is where they could cash them in. A negative act wasn’t perceived as negative because it was made up for by some previous good deed. It’s like running an extra lap so you can have cake.

If you think about it, we see examples of this kind of moral mathematics all the time. The sports arena is full of “good guys” that through drugs, infidelity, or some other silliness thought unethical behavior wouldn’t stick to them just because they had started a charity. How many politicians have fought for freedom and equality during the day and cashed in on some backdoor loophole at night? Whether you looked up to a religious leader or a comedic T.V. dad, chances are one of them has let you down in recent years. They found themselves at the top of the moral mountain and thought they were untouchable. They cashed in points until they were brought as low as any of us, sometimes lower.

So what now? What can we do to stop ourselves from engaging in this moral mathematics and becoming ethically neutral? First of all, we can stop being intimidated by Mary and all of her “helping the needy.” She’s probably only doing it to make up for her dog fighting ring. Second, Cornelissen’s study suggests that we focus on our perspective. As it turns out, moral balancing only had a major impact when the individual believed that the ends justify the means, if they were outcome focused. Which makes sense. If you’re only focused on the outcome, the math to get there can be as messy as it needs to be. On the other hand, the study found that for individuals who believed there was an ethical rule to follow or an absolute morality, the occurrence of moral balancing was almost nonexistent. Rule-oriented subjects weren’t focused on the outcome, but rather the process.

Morality can’t be a balancing act. Ethics can’t be a zero-sum-game. One of the heroes whom I hope never lets me down has always claimed to be fighting the never-ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way. That’s what morality needs to be; not a neutral status quo, but a never-ending battle.