Emotions in Ethical Decision Making

Age-old philosophical prescriptions assume cool, rational, ethical decisions. But we are also beginning to understand how important emotions are to the ethical decision-making process. Importantly, emotions are not just an interference to good ethical judgment, as many used to believe. Instead, emotions often lead to right action.’’ For example, when we consider hurting someone, our brain reacts with a visceral negative emotion (‘‘an internal alarm’’) that keeps violence in check. And these reactions tend to happen very quickly, before we even have time to engage in rational thought.

Consider two classic philosophical dilemmas. In one, a runaway train is headed for five people who will die if nothing is done. You can save the five by diverting the train to a different track, where it would kill only one person. Should you divert the train?

In the second dilemma, you’re standing next to a stranger on a bridge over the tracks. The only way to save the five people is to push the stranger onto the tracks, where his body would stop the train. Should you push the stranger?

To philosophers, the rational logic in these scenarios is similar; in both cases, you would be intentionally sacrificing one person in order to save five people.

But, when asked, most people say that you should divert the train in the first dilemma but not push the stranger onto the tracks in the second. Psychologists now tell us that emotions explain the difference between the scenarios because the second scenario engages emotions more than the first. This hypothesis was supported in an experiment that used brain scans to track brain activity during decision making. In dilemmas like the second one, parts of the brain associated with emotional processing were more active, and those who decided that pushing the stranger would be right took longer to make a decision because emotions slowed down their thought processes.60 Most normal people would find it difficult, if not impossible, to actually take another’s life in such a situation. This reluctance is attributed to the strong feelings of revulsion that come up from just thinking about taking a human life. These reactions are likely hardwired into human beings through evolution because they aid our survival. Interestingly though, people who have damage to the prefrontal cortex of the brain have no such reaction. They are much more likely to simply make the utilitarian analysis and say they would kill one person to save the others.

So emotions are clearly important in ethical decision making, and continuing research will help us more fully understand the process. It seems clear that emotions can aid us in doing the right thing when they alert us to ethical concerns, cause us to act to help others in need, or keep us from violent reactions (because of sympathy for another, pangs of guilt, or automatically triggered negative feelings). Feelings of betrayal or moral outrage can also cause people to act in the interest of fairness.63 For example, people may be more willing to speak up about the unfair treatment of a coworker if they feel moral outrage about it.64 interestingly, and research has found that people will even forgo financial benefits if they feel they’re being unfairly treated. In some fascinating experiments, researchers have demonstrated that individuals will punish another individual they perceive to be unethical even if there is nothing for them to gain and something to lose. They will do this even if they don’t know the person who has been offended.65 Accordingly, research has shown that the parts of our brains associated with feeling satisfaction are activated when we consider retaliating against someone who has unfairly harmed us.66 The bottom line here is that we often act not because we have coolly and rationally decided on the best course of action, but rather because it ‘‘feels’’ like the right thing to do at the time. Often, such emotions can lead us to act ethically. But emotions can also interfere with good decision making when they lead to a (perhaps irrational) desire for revenge. For example, when a competitor ‘‘poaches’’ one of your best people, do you try to recruit someone away from the competitor just to get even or to do damage to the competitor when you should be focusing more rationally on who is best prepared to do the job?

Consider how General Motors managers handled a four-year legal battle with

VW over their allegation that a 56-year-old GM executive, Jose Lopez, took  boxes of GM proprietary documents when he left GM to join Volkswagen in 1993. In 1992, Lopez was GM’s worldwide purchasing czar, known for his ability to cut costs ruthlessly. The missing documents included information about GM’s suppliers and their prices for auto parts, as well as information about upcoming Opel car models in the GM Europe division. Fortune magazine referred to the four-year legal battle that ensued as a tale of ‘‘betrayal’’ and ‘‘revenge.’’ Lou Hughes, head of GM Europe, was furious that Lopez would take proprietary documents to its fiercest competitor. He insisted that there would be no settlement with VW as long as Lopez remained there.

When asked what he hoped to gain from the litigation, Hughes replied, ‘‘Look, this is not a question of business. This is a question of ethics.’’68 Years of investigation yielded no hard evidence to suggest that anyone at VW had actually used the secret GM information. Fortune suggested that at the time, ‘‘one might have expected GM to act pragmatically, find some face-saving exit, and return its attention to the car business.’’ That might have been the ‘‘rational,’’ coolheaded thing to do. Instead, GM escalated the fight, bringing a racketeering suit that was expected to drag on for years and cost tens of millions of dollars. When pragmatic board members questioned the action, the board chairman insisted that the company had to pursue the suit because it ‘‘had been terribly wronged.’’ ‘‘Some things aren’t measured in time and money. They’re just who we are.’’ Finally, in January 1997, the two companies settled the case. Lopez, who had already resigned from Volkswagen, was barred from doing any work for VW through the year 2000. Volkswagen paid GM $100 million and agreed to buy $1 billion worth of GM parts over seven years. Fortune asked, ‘‘But what, in the end did the long, bitter, and costly struggle accomplish? In the cold light of day, the answer seems simple and shocking: not much.’’ A huge company devoted years of attention and spent millions of dollars because its managers were morally outraged that their former friend had betrayed them. It was obviously an emotional reaction.

Clearly, anger and other emotions can influence thoughts and actions. Whether that is good or bad depends on whether the emotion leads to ‘‘right’’ or ‘‘wrong’’ action. If empathy or guilt lead you to recognize an ethical issue or think about the consequences of your actions for others, that’s a good thing. If moral outrage leads you to seek justice, that’s good as well. But moral outrage can also lead to a desire for revenge, and that may be the time to bring cooler heads to the decision to determine whether action based upon revenge is a good ethical (and business) decision. Those who are not as emotionally involved in the interpersonal issues may be able to offer a more rational and balanced assessment of the situation. In the GM– Volkswagen case, those pragmatic board members may have been right to support a quick settlement.