NYU Ethos Integrity Series: WTF?

Gothamist reported on Wednesday that some student protesters as NYU were being required complete "modules in a 49-page Ethos Integrity Series' that seeks to teach them about 'moral reasoning' and 'ethical decision-making.'" 

The story calls attention to the most egregious aspect of the whole thing, which is that the activity as a whole has a "forced confession" aspect. They also point out that to complete the exercises, students must "rank a list of 42 values, including patriotism, family, and security and safety, in order of importance to them," and that they have to watch and analyze a Simpsons episode.   

I wanted to check it out so I clicked the linked document. It is true that even though each section says "We are not looking for any particular answers to the following questions," the structure of the exercise assumes that the person has done something wrong and that this wrongness is why reflection is required.

To me, this becomes most concrete and obvious in the sections toward the end about "neutralization" techniques, which they say people use to “explain away” their unethical behaviors with excuses like "Well, I didn’t think it was bad because..." These "excuses," the document says, are masking a root problem or a lack of experience and knowledge with regard to ethical decision-making." Their use indicates that a person has "not yet fully committed to always acting with integrity."

The document's discussion of this topic is somewhat confusing, because they go on to "combine" "neutralizations," "justifications," and "rationalizations" in one list of eighteen items. But each of these "18 types of neutralization techniques," they say, "is used as way to explain unethical behavior without having to view oneself as being unethical."

One of those eighteen "neutralization" techniques is:

11. It is Necessary; The Ends Justify the Means; It is for a Good Cause (admits act and takes responsibility – does not see act as bad, conversely see act as good).

This seems to be saying that if you do what you think is best in a circumstance, and it violates a rule, then you are unethical.

But isn't breaking a rule in service to a higher good often seen as a component of admirable moral behavior? Isn't there a whole ethical theory, consequentialism, based on the idea that ethical actions are ones that promote the best overall outcomes -- so if the ends are good enough, the ends always justify the means? Aren't endless wars and things justified by saying things like "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs"?

There are other absurdities. Of course it is silly to have to rank 42 vague items in an ordered list, but more importantly, ethical values just don't work that way. No one puts patriotism over family all the time or vice versa, or puts security or anything else over every other consideration all the time. If you value honesty, you might think it's OK to tell a trivial lie for an important purpose and not OK to tell a lie about something important for a trivial purpose. If you value security, you might lock your door when you go to bed, but are you really going to build a safe room with locks that you never leave? Anyone who prioritized one value over 41 others all the time would be thought to have lost the plot.

I also object to their idea that "'Unexamined values are 'bad' values" because "If you do not know how you got your values or why you (still) have them, how do you actually know that these are your values?" Most people get their values from family, culture, and peer group. The idea that thinking and reflecting somehow elevates you into a higher plane of being is unjustified. Plus, what do you reflect on, exactly? If you were raised to be honest, and you are honest, what is the reflection question? Is it "Do I really value honesty"? Or -- "Is honestly really valuable"? Neither is a recipe for being a better person.

Some of the sources for the document seem to be institutes designed to help organizations improve compliance from their members, which I guess is not surprising under the circumstances, but you'd think a university could do better.

One of their linked sources -- and the one they cite for the inspiration that "the ends justifies the means" is a "neutralization" -- is an institute whose linked website lists five "reasons to be ethical." Those five reasons are: inner benefit, personal advantage, approval, religion, habit. I'll just leave those here for you all to ponder.