Chapter 1:
How We Believe
The Context of Our Character, Duke University
We like to believe that our moral character, the basis upon which we decide right or wrong, is more or less fixed and unchanging. But do our moral standards, and the choices upon which they are based, actually change from setting to setting? This is the unsettling question Duke professor Daniel Ariely considers in this video. Presenting us with scenarios in which we might find ourselves tempted to “cheat,” he makes a provocative argument about the malleability of morality. Daniel Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He is the author of several books, including Predictably Irrational (2008), The Upside of Irrationality (2010), and The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty (2012).
Discussion and Writing Questions
After watching The Context of Our Character, consider the questions below.
Discussion:
1. What do you think of the title The Context of Our Character? Do you agree with the implication here that our character is dependent, at least to some degree, on context? Why or why not?
2. “We can cheat,” Ariely declares, “up to the place we could irritate our conscience, and at that place we stop.” Based on your own experience, do you find this proposition to be true? Can you think of an example from your own life that either confirms or challenges this claim?
3. According to Ariely, the core question he wants to answer here is “What really governs cheating in everyday life?” How do you answer this question? What are the forces or factors that make it more or less likely that a person will cheat?
Writing:
4. “The sad thing,” declares Ariely, “is that as we move from a society where we have less and less cash and more and more symbolic transactions…it might actually become easier and easier for people to be dishonest and still think of themselves as honest.” Write an essay in which you address and evaluate the argument Ariely is making here. What does he mean by the term symbolic transactions? And do you agree that the growing prevalence of such transactions poses new challenges for the ways we view our own honesty?
5. Ariely describes an experiment in which he compared people’s willingness to steal bottles of Coca-Cola left in a refrigerator to their willingness to steal cash left in the same place. First, review Ariely’s discussion of his findings. What difference does he discover in people’s willingness to steal these different items? Then, put yourself in the place of the researcher. How would you interpret the results of this experiment? What would you say these results tell us about the changeable nature of honesty?
6. Michael Sandel (“Markets and Morals,” 40) is another writer who explores our cultural attitudes toward money. How do you think he would respond to the argument Ariely is making here about stealing and honesty? In your view, are Ariely and Sandel making similar arguments about our cultural attitudes toward cash? How or how not?