HONEST FELLOWS THAT CHEAT!

People carrying the tag of honesty may falsely report a meal with friend in restaurant as business expense. They may arrange fake certificates to qualify for tax deduction. If they are reminded of morality at the moment, may be some of them won’t cheat. Going unworldly, uncorrupt and God-fearing stop people from cheating, but the removal from any bench marks of ethical thought prompts one to stray into dishonesty. Why do these fellows compromise their integrity? Given the opportunity many honest people cheat.

People care about honesty. They want to be honest. Our internal honesty monitor is seemingly active when some of us contemplate big transgressions (accept whopper and refuse itsy-bitsy). It may be so for little transgressions too (accept itsy-bitsy and refuse whopper). In either of the situations we don’t even consider how these actions would reflect on our honesty and so our superegos stay asleep. Without the superego’s help, the only defense we have against this kind of transgression is a rational cost-benefit analysis. But who is going to consciously weigh the benefits of taking a towel from a hotel room versus the cost of being caught? Cost-benefit analysis and the probability of getting caught don’t seem to have much influence on dishonesty.      

As we grow in our society we internalize the social virtues which then lead to the development of superego. In general superego is pleased when we comply with society’s ethics and unhappy when we don’t. This is why we get a warm feeling when we return a lost wallet to its owner even if our identity is never revealed. Such acts stimulate the reward centers of our brain and make us content. If most of us feel that honesty makes us feel good, why on earth, are we so frequently dishonest?

When social norms collide with market norms the latter alone stay. Even if the analogy isn’t exact, honesty offers a related lesson; once professional ethics (social norms) have declined getting them back won’t be easy. Look at the Kashmiri society….no trust! People hesitate to pay in advance; none offers credit, and nobody is willing to take risks. People must hire within their families where some level of trust still exists.  Because we’re so adept at rationalizing our petty dishonesty, it’s often hard to get a clear picture of how nonmonetary objects influence our cheating. In taking a pen e.g. we might reason that office supplies are a part of our overall compensation, or that lifting a pen or two is what everyone does. We might say that playing thief with the (power) meter is all right because after all lot of people do it with their meters.

Good people aren’t immune to being partially blinded by their own minds. This blindness allows them to take actions that bypass their own moral standards to financial rewards. In essence motivation can play tricks on us whether or not we are good moral people. We can sign our names to promises that we’ll act with integrity. We get to recognize that when we get into situations where our personal financial benefit stands in opposition to odious moral standards we’re able to bend reality, see the world in terms compatible with our selfish interest and become dishonest. A physician, e.g. orders tests that benefit him financially.   

The common approach to deceit is based on external cost–benefit analysis as the way people make decisions about dishonesty. This approach assumes no tension between beliefs and actions; i.e. people only care about their personal gain from behaving dishonestly (benefit) and about the likelihood of being caught and the magnitude of punishment if caught (cost). People behave dishonestly enough to profit but honestly enough to ensure themselves of their own integrity. On the basis of these findings, the theory of self-concept maintenance includes both external and internal rewards as an input into people’s trade-off equation. The idea is that a little bit of dishonesty can provide some benefits without spoiling a positive self-view.

The boy of honest parents and honestly bred, goes to a trade, or a store, where the employer practices legal frauds. The plain honesty of the boy excites roars of laughter among the better taught clerks. The master tells them that such blundering truthfulness must be pitied; the boy evidently has been neglected, and is not to be ridiculed for what he could not help. At first, it verily pains the youth's scruples, and tinges his face to frame a deliberate dishonesty, to finish, and to polish it. His tongue stammers at a lie; but the example of a rich master, the jeers and gibes of shop mates, with gradual practice, cure all this. He becomes adroit in fleecing customers for his master's sake, and equally dexterous in fleecing his master for his own sake.

While life needs a good mix of honesty and diplomacy an honest person feels frustrated and restless when forced to be diplomatic against his will. A diplomatic person gets highly stressed at the thought of speaking the plain truth. If you want to be honest and speak against your boss, you better be prepared to lose your job. If you tell your friend about your hatred for him you lose friendship. Once you are ready to accept consequences without regret or remorse then you can be honest. Few of us would want to rock the boat by speaking the truth at work or home. We like to avoid confrontation.

The success of most people…almost always depends upon the favour and good opinion of their neighbours and equals. Without a tolerably regular conduct these can very seldom be obtained. The proverb that honesty is always the best policy holds, in such situations, almost perfectly true….darker corollary to this statement is that since people engage in cost benefit analysis to be dishonest. According to this perspective individuals are honest only to the extent that suits them including their desire to please others. In deciding when to be honest and when to be at diplomatic best, people also have to decide whether they should be absolutely candid or use the truth as a matter of convenience.