Deciphering Right from Wrong: Why Some Moral Agents Fail to See the Difference

In my ethics classes, my students and I were immersed in a fruitful discussion on moral agents. I posed one question for them to answer. They could draw from their experiences or their observations of people around them. One of the challenges they brought forward was deciphering right actions from wrong ones. From there, I also recalled a recent Facebook post from a friend where she lamented the inability of many people to see into the bad actions they commit, yet very much invested in other people’s wrong actions. Why can we see other people’s faults more than we see ours? And why is it difficult for some agents to identify right from bad actions?

Undeniably, every day we are confronted with choices - some could be trivial, while others may be more profound. As moral agents, we assume we possess the capacity to distinguish between ethical and unethical acts. Unfortunately, many of us grapple to identify these two, especially when the layers of power, privilege, and personal gain, come in. This is where cognitive abilities matter as one’s intellect will guide a person in accurately identifying a morally right action. 

Take for example a Senior Professor who asks Junior Instructors for Instructional Materials that they have created for their classes. The Senior Professor claims that he needs those materials to enhance his teaching. On the face of it, the intention seems noble as the benefits will accrue to the students. However, when we consider the imbalance of power dynamics between the requestor and the requestees, it is a clear act of social injustice. It is public knowledge that Instructors are paid as entry-level employees, and are often underpaid and overworked. Ironically, I find it amusing that the Senior Professor was not able to display his cognitive abilities in this situation. More likely, he focused on the end goal – to help the students. And yet, the maxim, “the end does not justify the means,” he failed to account, as his action exploits those who are paid far less than him.

Cognitive dissonance – one’s conflicting thoughts or beliefs, allow moral agents to commit errors in identifying right and wrong behavior. If only the Professor looked beyond the face value of his act, he could have realized that his action also perpetuates inequality in the workplace. There is a clear lack of “moral imagination,” which according to John Paul Lederach is the capacity to envision and foster creative ethical thinking to holistically evaluate an action’s impact.

To reiterate, the failure of moral agents to uncover the lines between right and wrong actions, oftentimes requires cognitive abilities, self-awareness, and empathy. To make ethical decisions, moral agents have to cultivate their cognitive skills and engage in discussions that promote the exchange of moral reasoning and critical thought. Through these, we may become more morally conscious individuals.