Wrongdoing

Abstract: Moral Repair examines the ethics and moral psychology of responses to wrongdoing. Explaining the emotional bonds and normative expectations that keep human beings responsive to moral standards and responsible to each other, Margaret Urban Walker uses realistic examples of both personal betrayal and political violence to analyze how moral bonds are damaged by serious wrongs and what must be done to repair the damage. Focusing on victims of wrong, their right to validation, and their sense of justice, Walker presents a unified and detailed philosophical account of hope, trust, resentment, forgiveness, and making amends - the emotions and practices that sustain moral relations. Moral Repair joins a multidisciplinary literature concerned with transitional and restorative justice, reparations, and restoring individual dignity and mutual trust in the wake of serious wrongs.

Abstract: The potential explanations of why some observers report organizational wrongdoing, whereas others do not, are considered in this study. Nearly 8,600 randomly selected employees of 15 organizations completed questionnaires concerning whistle-blowing. Archival data and aggregate measures of organizational climate were also used. Discriminant analysis revealed that organization members who had observed alleged wrongdoing were more likely to blow the whistle if they had convincing evidence of wrongdoing, if the wrongdoing was serious, and if it directly affected them. Further, where the organization appeared to be dependent on the wrongdoing and threatened retaliation, whistle-blowers were more likely to report it to someone outside the organization. Implications for management practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Abstract: Peer reporting is a specific form of whistelblowing in which an individual discloses the wrongdoing of a peer. Previous studies have examined situational variables thought to influence a person's decision to report the wrongdoing of a peer. The present study looked at peer reporting from the individual level. Five hypotheses were developed concerning the relationships between (1) religiosity and ethical ideology, (2) ethical ideology and ethical judgments about peer reporting, and (3) ethical judgments and intentions to report peer wrongdoing. Subjects read a vignette concerning academic cheating, and were asked to respond to a question-naire concerning the vignette. Data were analyzed using structural equation methodology. Results indicated that religiosity was positively associated with an ethical ideology of non-relativism. Individuals whose ethical ideologies could be described as idealistic and non-relativistic were more likely to state that reporting a peer's cheating was ethical. In turn, individuals who believed reporting a peer's cheating was ethical were more likely to say that they would report a peer's cheating.

Abstract: We hear allegations of complicity all the time. Yet there are many ways of being mixed up with the wrongdoing of others. Not all of them are morally on a par; some are worse than others. Furthermore, contributing complicitly to wrongdoing, while still wrong in itself, might nonetheless be the right thing to do if that is the only way to achieve some greater good. Drawing on deep scholarship in philosophy, law and political science, and on a wealth of practical experience delivering emergency medical services in conflict-ridden settings, Lepora and Goodin summarize their analysis in a formula that can be used as a decision heuristic. Its usefulness is illustrated by applications both to stylized philosophical examples and to vexing cases of complicity in the real world, such as the complicity of humanitarian aid organizations with genocidaires controlling Rwandan refugee camps and the complicity of physicians treating patients who are being subjected to torture.