UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 15.2 Free with a free account
Developing Independent Moral Judgment in Professional and Business Environments
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 15: Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital CitizenshipSection 15.2 · lesson 101 of 11614 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How Personal Values and Professional Ethics Intersect in the Modern Workplace →← How to Approach Difficult Choices When Technology Creates Competing InterestsNext lesson: How Personal Values and Professional Ethics Intersect in the Modern Workplace →
In this lesson
Reasoning, social pressure, rationalization and moral courage at work.
- Describe Kohlberg’s 3 levels and 6 stages
- Explain obedience and conformity pressures
- Recognize rationalizations that compromise values
- Identify practices supporting moral courage
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,732 words). Read along, or search it.
Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital Citizenship
Independent Moral Judgment
Professional pressure can make troubling decisions easier to accept. This lesson connects reasons for judgment, with pressures that change behavior. First, describe Kohlberg's three levels, containing six stages of moral development. Second, explain how obedience and conformity can override individual judgment. Third, recognize familiar rationalizations, which make compromising values feel acceptable. Fourth, identify concrete practices supporting moral courage at work. Distinguish understanding a concern, from acting when the costs feel real. The reading uses classic research by Stanley Milgram and Solomon Asch, to illustrate situational pressure. It also supplies workplace examples, including a manager's instruction, an expense report, and a required standard. Usable organizational routes support courage, beyond reliance on personal bravery. Ask why someone reaches a conclusion, before inferring reasons from actions.
Kohlberg’s Framework
Examine the Reason Behind the Conclusion
Lawrence Kohlberg proposed six stages of moral reasoning, grouped into three broader levels of development. The framework examines moral reasoning, beyond what someone decides. The preconventional level includes the first two stages: punishment avoidance, and an exchange serving immediate self-interest. The conventional level includes the third and fourth stages: interpersonal conformity, followed by law and order. The postconventional level includes the fifth and sixth stages: social contract, and universal ethical principles. The categories distinguish reasons, even when people agree on an action. Following rules for approval differs from following a self-chosen principle. The action can be the same, while the moral reasoning differs. This is a proposed framework for understanding reasoning, rather than a diagnosis from one isolated workplace behavior. Ask for the explanation, rather than assuming agreement means identical reasoning. The distinction helps when policy, approval, and ethical evaluation pull differently.
All 6 Stages
Keep the Stages and Their Reasons Distinct
Stage one is obedience and punishment avoidance: following rules simply to avoid being punished. Stage two is self-interest exchange: following rules when doing so serves one's immediate personal interest. Both are preconventional, although punishment avoidance differs from pursuing personal advantage. Stage three is interpersonal conformity: acting to gain approval, and maintain relationships with other people. Stage four is law and order: following rules and fulfilling duties, to maintain social order. Both are conventional, with approval and social order providing different reasons. Stage five is social contract: recognizing laws as agreements, which can change if they treat people unfairly. Stage six is universal ethical principles: acting on self-chosen principles, even when they conflict with law. Those last two stages are postconventional, within Kohlberg's proposed framework. Describing this theory does not authorize disregarding an applicable law. Distinguish the six reasons, without assuming one stage always describes someone.
Professional Judgment
Approval and Policy Can Displace Evaluation
The workplace application concerns accepting decisions, despite privately finding them troubling. At stage three, harmony and colleagues' approval may motivate compliance. Fitting in might take priority over independently evaluating the decision. At stage four, official policy can displace independent ethical evaluation. Someone capable of independent reasoning can still experience workplace pressure. Examine reasons, rather than assuming ability alone prevents ethical compromise. The first review question compares stage three with stage six, when both people follow the same rule. One person may follow it for group approval. Another may follow it because it matches a self-chosen principle. Agreement on an action does not erase different reasons for it. Ask what the explanation prioritizes: approval, established duties, fairness, or the person's own ethical principles. Examine the reasoning, beyond treating the conclusion as the complete assessment.
Classic Research
Authority and a Group Can Exert Different Pressures
Milgram's nineteen sixties obedience research studied authority pressure in distressing situations. Participants were instructed to deliver believed painful electric shocks to someone. In the reported baseline condition, a majority continued, despite indications of distress and their own concerns. The shocks were simulated; the lesson concerns participants' beliefs and actions. This does not mean a majority always obeys; experimental outcomes differed. Asch studied conformity, when a group gave wrong visual-task answers. Many participants went along with the group's answer, despite the conflict with the plainly available evidence. Authority and group pressure are related, but their situations remain distinct. Situational pressure can overcome independent judgment, even when concern already exists. Neither study establishes that people are necessarily cruel, careless, or dependent. Treat particular findings as evidence, rather than a universal character verdict.
Visible Dissent
Peer Resistance Can Help Others Act on Doubts
Visible dissent can change the situation, while private doubts already exist. Milgram also studied conditions with peer resistance, where destructive obedience was lower than in the comparison condition. Others' refusal can support acting on concerns, rather than silently complying. Asch likewise found that disrupting a unanimous majority reduced conformity, in the conditions he studied. That finding does not promise identical effects in every workplace. Visible disagreement can help others voice doubts, but it does not guarantee safety or a particular response. An initial act of dissent can change the conversation. A person may already recognize the problem, while feeling uncomfortable about standing apart from colleagues. Seeing resistance can reduce isolation, making action on a concern easier. Moral courage involves translating judgment into action under pressure. Ask how the situation supports speaking up, beyond individual bravery.
Common Rationalizations
Recognize the 5 Phrases in the Source Diagram
The second diagram lists five rationalizations, making value compromises feel comfortable. Everyone does it, treats widespread behavior as justification for the choice. It's not really my responsibility, distances the person from the decision. No one will get hurt, makes the choice feel harmless without examination. I'm doing this for a good reason, substitutes a motive for evaluation. I'll make it right later, postpones confronting the present compromise. The diagram's order is not a required sequence, and people need not use all five excuses. Familiar justifications can lower the psychological cost of compromising values. Recognizing the phrases in your own thinking matters, just as much as noticing them in others. Examine the choice more closely, rather than letting familiar explanations end discussion. Pause at the excuse, and ask whether the decision actually rests on a defensible reason.
Pause and Examine
A Comfortable Explanation Can Conceal the Real Reason
Rationalization means constructing a seemingly reasonable explanation, for a decision actually made for less defensible reasons. The offered justification differs from the real reason behind the choice. People rarely announce to themselves that they intend to do something wrong, before making the decision. An ordinary-sounding explanation makes compromise feel acceptable, reducing discomfort. Recognizing the process creates an opportunity to pause and examine the decision. Examine your own reasoning too, beyond people you already distrust. Ask whether the familiar explanation actually addresses the ethical concern. Examine claims of no harm; assertion cannot erase the concern. Good motives alone do not complete the ethical reasoning, because the actual choice still needs evaluation. A familiar phrase is a cue for scrutiny, rather than automatic proof that wrongdoing has occurred. Examine carefully, before a comfortable excuse substitutes for independent judgment.
Moral Courage
Act on Ethical Judgment Despite Possible Cost
Moral courage is the willingness to act on ethical judgment, despite possible social, professional, or personal costs. Action matters. Private discomfort alone does not raise or address the concern, when others never hear about it. One source example involves questioning a manager's instruction, even when disagreement could make the relationship uncomfortable. Another involves flagging a colleague's questionable expense report, rather than dismissing the concern to preserve harmony. A third involves refusing to sign off on work, when it does not meet a required standard. Each example connects judgment to action, beyond abstract claims about values. Possible costs explain hesitation, even when someone recognizes the problem. Courage does not require pretending those costs are absent, or assuming every organization responds constructively. It involves acting according to one's judgment, despite the risk that the action carries. Accessible organizational reporting routes can make raising the concern easier, especially when the direct manager is involved. Move from personal courage, to practices supporting workplace speaking up.
Support Speaking Up
4 Practices Make Concerns Easier to Raise
The reading identifies four practices that can support speaking up, beyond asking employees to be brave. First, frame the concern as a question, rather than starting with an accusation that closes discussion. Second, where suitable, raise the issue privately with a specific person, avoiding unnecessary public embarrassment. That approach can support a more serious, open conversation. Third, document the concern in writing, which both creates a record and requires clearer expression. Writing makes concerns specific, beyond a vague feeling of discomfort. Fourth, provide multiple reporting channels, so the concern can go somewhere beyond the person involved. Reporting only to the involved person can make concerns harder to raise. These practices can help, but they do not guarantee a response or replace applicable reporting requirements. The appropriate route depends on the concern and circumstances, rather than treating private discussion as compulsory in every case. Support courage through usable practices, beyond one person's willingness to risk conflict.
Key Terms and Takeaways
Connect Reasoning, Pressure and Action
Four key terms connect the lesson's ideas, from explaining a judgment to acting under professional pressure. Kohlberg's stages describe a proposed six-stage, three-level account of how moral reasoning develops over time. Conformity means matching a group's judgment or behavior, even when it conflicts with your own observation. Rationalization means constructing a reasonable-sounding justification, for a choice made for other, less defensible reasons. Moral courage means acting on ethical judgment, despite the possibility of social, professional, or personal costs. First, examine the reasons behind a judgment, rather than inferring them from its conclusion alone. Second, situational pressure can override judgment, even when someone already recognizes a conflict with their own values. Third, recognize rationalizations, which can make compromising values easier. The fourth is to support speaking up through concrete practices, including suitable private routes, writing, and multiple channels. Understanding a concern does not guarantee that pressure leaves behavior unaffected. Examine reasons, notice excuses, and make the concern clear through an appropriate route when action is needed.
Review Questions
Explain the 5 Answers, Rather Than Reciting Labels
The first review asks why different stages can produce the same action: the reasons behind agreement can differ. Explain the contrast between following a rule for approval, and following it because it matches a self-chosen principle. The second asks about Milgram: authority pressure could lead participants to continue, despite distress or personal concern. Keep that answer tied to the studied conditions, rather than claiming that obedience is inevitable. The third asks about visible dissent: peer resistance can help others act on doubts they already have. Fourth, rationalizations can signal that a value is being compromised. Recognizing excuses offers a pause, to examine whether the decision is defensible. The fifth asks for two practices supporting speaking up, and the source answer highlights questions and writing. A question can keep the conversation open. Writing creates a record, and forces the concern to be stated clearly. Also explain private approaches and multiple channels, choosing a suitable route. Finish by connecting judgment to action: explain your reason, recognize pressure, and examine comfortable excuses before proceeding.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Developing Independent Moral Judgment in Professional and Business Environments
What are Kohlberg's six stages of moral development?
What did the Milgram and Asch experiments show about pressure at work?
What are common rationalizations for unethical behavior at work?
How can employees show moral courage and speak up at work?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →