Eduardo and the architecture of morality
There is a wonderful piece by Matthew Syed in this morning’s Times. It explores the controversy surrounding Eduardo’s dive against Celtic last week, which has now led to a two match ban for the Arsenal player. Syed recalls his own attempt to cheat in a championship table tennis game and how he was saved from himself by one of his coaches. Syed argues that rules, regualtions and video referees only take you so far. Sports need moral code strong enough to weigh against the overwhelming desire to succeed.
I would love to undertake research about the nature of moral dilemmas. Over the last year or so we have seen many episodes, ranging from Ross and Brand, to Sir Fred Goodwin, to MPs’ expenses, in which the public has reacted against what it sees as unacceptable behaviour. Yet there has been relatively little discussion of what might be called the ‘architecture’ of moral choice.
Like other aspects of behaviour, morality emerges from the interaction of three levels of personality. First, we have certain hard wired predispositions, both as a species and as individuals. The evolutionary psychologist, Marc Hauser, has shown a remarkable consistency across cultures of certain quite subtle moral distinctions. Also, people have a different capacity to exercise restraint depending on their physiology and socialisation (think, for example, of the problems sufferers of autism have with empathy).
Second, there are the cultural norms which frame moral choices. If in a society or sub culture there is a taboo attaching to a certain behaviour (drinking, gambling, eating dogs) it will carry a moral weight lacking in another cultural setting. A fascinating issue is the degree to which moral frames differ from organisation to organisation – for example a city bank or an NHS hospital. Third there is the conscious process of decision making in the face of a dilemma.
Very often controversy about an alleged moral failing concerns whether it is a cultural or organisational problem, or one that can be attributed to the immorality of the individual: did the MPs’ expenses debacle result from the culture of Westminster or the greed of individual MPs? (The answer, of courses is some combination of the two)
These are complex issues. It is not simply a matter of attributing causality across the three different levels. Think of the famous study of theology students who had just discussed the parable of the Good Samaritan. When, immediately afterwards, the students were directed past a stranger in obvious distress there was no difference between them and students who had studied a different bible story. Instead, the key variable was whether the students were in a hurry. The determining factor was not people’s beliefs or prevailing norms but whether they had the ‘head space’ to be receptive to the empathetic signals which our brains are hard wired to generate.
I’m sure my readers can direct me to some good reading in this area. But beyond the theory, it would be great to use real life examples to explore more closely the moral architecture of a variety of sectors. How about starting with banking, sport, politics and the media.
Fred, the rich and compulsory good causes
A bit of a consensus is emerging about the ‘Fred the Shred’ pensions debacle. On the one hand, people find Goodwin’s determination to hold onto his pension inexplicable and obscene, given the misery his bad decision-making is causing. On the other hand, there is a strong suspicion that Government ministers are using Fred-baiting as a useful way of avoiding more difficult discussions about the overall crisis, or as a way of currying favour amongst Labour activists.
No one would call Sir Fred a deserving cause but the row reinforces a growing public concern about just desserts. The laissez faire attitude to massive rewards espoused by, among others, Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson, is no longer fashionable. The old orthodoxy (and when I say ‘old’ I mean spring 2008!) was that for the state to interfere in how the private sector rewards people would be counter productive and, anyway, in a free-market what you earn is, by definition, what you are worth.
There would be huge problems about Government trying to decide who deserves what salary across the whole economy. Having said which, at a time like this, it is corrosive to public morale to be confronted by people being paid thirty or forty times more than their fellow hard-working citizens. It may be better to address mega-salaries as a whole rather than ministers being pressured to determine the pay of every senior executive.
We all hope that Gordon Brown, Barack Obama and other world leaders find a way of tacking the immediate economic crisis. Even if they do, though, there can be no return to the excesses of the past. Unless we are to saddle our children and grandchildren with an impossible burden, the baby boomer generation is going to have to work harder, save more, consume more carefully. One of the symbols of life in this new world may be that it is hard to justify ‘super wealth’. This might lead us to explore new ideas which balance personal freedom with social solidarity.
For example, how about saying that those who earn, say, over £250,000 have to give a quarter of the income earned above that amount (over and above the tax they pay) to a charitable cause. This way the rich still have motivation to get richer but now it is a socially benign motivation (to help their favoured good cause) rather than simply looking like greed. And, given the problems of tax evasion, the rich would be less inclined to try to avoid such an obligation. It’s one thing to try to fool the taxman, it’s another entirely to welsh on your duty to society.
The (many) unacceptable faces of capitalism
I defy anyone to read the following without wanting to kick something or somebody.
There is the tale of former Merrill Lynch boss John Thain who has just resigned from Bank of America. You might have thought that his disastrous management of the former investment bank might have been enough to persuade Mr Thain quite some time ago to retire quietly to one of his mansions. In fact, the reason for his hasty departure is the growing outrage not only at his decision – in the face of the imminent demise of his bank – to bring forward and increase bonuses to senior staff, but also the allegation that while Merrills slipped deeper into trouble, the Bank spent several hundred thousand dollars refurbishing his personal office, including one of the most expensive waste paper baskets in history.
Then try Jonathan Guthrie’s piece in yesterday’s FT. He describes the growing practice of company owners opting for so called ‘pre-pack’ insolvencies. By putting their companies into administration they can shed all unsecured debts, and obligations to existing and former staff. Then, sometimes just hours later, the previous owners turn up and repurchase their former assets at a knock down price. Guthrie gives an example: ‘David Charlton, founder of the Officers Club, recently bought 118 of the garment chain’s 150 stores out of administration’.
As Guthrie says ‘the morality of pre-packs becomes questionable if owner directors use them to cherry pick the best bits of their struggling business. A director who agrees with secured lenders to shed his unsecured obligations is treating his suppliers, his pensioners and the tax man [that’s me and you] prettily scurvily’. Quite apart from the morality, this practice will increase distrust and fear in the market as suppliers demand immediate payment worried that otherwise they might be ‘pre-packed’.
Finally, read a brilliant article by Alice Thomson in yesterday’s Times which exposes the myth that those who created the economic nightmare are also suffering the consequences. If I were a Northerner reading the piece I would get a train to Mayfair and start picking fights. Thomson’s piece has one flaw – she says that Sir Fred Goodwin, the disgraced former boss of RBS and one of the dozen or so people most individually responsible for the mess we are in, is Chair of the Prince’s Trust (but surely this can’t be true!).
One day, enterprise, driven in large part largely by the pursuit of wealth, will help us get out of the mess we are in. Occasionally, we hear the CBI and the IoD making more demands from Government. How about these august institutions – or perhaps the British Bankers Association – taking a stand for ethical business practice. As John Kay told a packed RSA Great Room last night, this crisis is not one of capitalism but of the stupidity and greed of a cadre of overpaid and under-regulated bankers. If the champions of business are to save the reputation of wealth creation they might usefully start by loudly distinguishing good business from its many unacceptable faces.
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.