Ethical Fallacies: Cognitive Strategies To Justify Unethical Behavior 1

Justifications
All of us face the human temptation to duck important ethical responsibilities.
Temptation grows stronger when we're tired, afraid, under pressure, or in
conflict.
Common cognitive strategies can fool us by making what we know or suspect
is unethical seem perfectly ethical.
The most common ethical fallacies rely on twisted judgment, appealing
fallacies, and juggled language. They can spin the most questionable
behaviors into ethical ideals.
To restate a major theme of this book: We believe that the overwhelming
majority of psychologists are conscientious, caring individuals, committed to
ethical behavior.
We also believe that all of us are fallible, no one is perfect in all areas at all
times, and we all share vulnerabilities at one time or another to at least a few
of these ethical justifications.
Many of the justifications below appeared in previous editions of this book,
and some were added when the list appeared in What Therapists Don't Talk
About and Why: Understanding Taboos That Hurt Us and Our Clients by Ken
Pope, Janet Sonne, & Beverly Greene (American Psychological Association,
2006).
If any of the 21 fallacies seems hard to swallow, it may be one that we
personally have not yet had to resort to. Sometime down the road at a
moment of terrible need, temptation, exhaustion, carelessness, narcissism,
anger, lack of perspective, or confusion, an ethical fallacy that once struck us
as ridiculous may suddenly emerge as wise, profound, and practical.
What sorts of cognitive maneuvers can transform unethical behavior into the
ethical ideal? Here are a few. We encourage readers to expand the list.
1) It's not unethical as long as a managed care administrator or insurance
case reviewer required or suggested it.
2) It's not unethical if the American Psychological Association or similar
organization allows it.
3) It's not unethical if an ethics code never mentions the concept, term, or act.
4) It's not unethical as long as no law was broken.
5) It's not unethical if we can use the passive voice and look ahead. If
someone discovers that our c.v. is full of degrees we never earned, positions
The following excerpt is adapted from the chapter "Ethics & Critical Thinking"
in the book Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: A Practical Guide, Third
Edition, by Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D., ABPP, and Melba J. T Vasquez, Ph.D.,
ABPP (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/John Wiley & Sons, 2007)
1

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

we never held, and awards we never received, all we need do is

nondefensively acknowledge that mistakes were made and it's time to move
on.
6) It's not unethical as long as we can name others who do the same thing.
7) It's not unethical as long as we didn't mean to hurt anyone.
8) It's not unethical even if our acts have caused harm as long as the person
we harmed had it coming, provoked us, deserved it, was really asking for it, or
practically forced us to do it -- or, failing that, has not behaved perfectly, is in
some way unlikable, or is acting unreasonably.
9) It's not unethical as long as there is no body of universally accepted,
methodologically perfect (i.e., without any flaws, weaknesses, or limitations)
studies showing without any doubt whatsoever that exactly what we did
was the necessary and sufficient proximate cause of harm to the client and
that the client would otherwise be free of all physical and psychological
problems, difficulties, or challenges. This view was succinctly stated by a
member of the Texas pesticide regulatory board charged with protecting Texas
citizens against undue risks from pesticides. In discussing Chlordane, a
chemical used to kill termites, one member said, "Sure, it's going to kill a lot of
people, but they may be dying of something else anyway"
("Perspectives," Newsweek, April 23, 1990, p. 17).
10) It's not unethical if we could not (or did not) anticipate the unintended
consequences of our acts.
11) It's not unethical if we acknowledge the importance of judgment,
consistency, and context. For example, it may seem as if a therapist who has
submitted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of bogus insurance claims
for patients he never saw might have behaved "unethically." However, as
attorneys and others representing such professionals often point out: It was
simply an error in judgment, completely inconsistent with the high ethics
manifest in every other part of the persons' life, and insignificant in the context
of the unbelievable good that this person does.
12) It's not unethical if we can say any of the following about it (feel free to
extend the list):
"What else could I do?"
"Anyone else would've done the same thing."
"It came from the heart."
"I listened to my soul."
"I went with my gut."
"It was the smart thing to do."
"It was just common sense."
"I just knew that's what the client needed."
"Look, I was just stuck between a rock and a hard place."

"I'd do the same thing again if I had it to do over."

"It worked before."
"I'm only human, you know!"
"What's the big deal?
13) It's not unethical if we have written an article, chapter, or book about it.
14) It's not unethical as long as we were under a lot of stress. No fair-minded
person would hold us accountable when it is clear that it was the stress we
were underalong with all sorts of other powerful factorsthat must be held
responsible.
15) It's not unethical as long as no one ever complained about it.
16) It's not unethical as long as we know that the people involved in enforcing
standards (e.g., licensing boards or administrative law judges) are dishonest,
stupid, destructive, and extremist; are unlike us in some significant way; or are
conspiring against us.
17) It's not unethical as long as it results in a higher income or more prestige
(i.e., is necessary).
18) It's not unethical if we're victims. Claiming tragic victim status is easy: we
can always use one of 2 traditional scapegoats: (a) our "anything-goes"
society that lacks clear standards and leaves us ethically adrift or, conversely,
(b) our coercive, intolerant society that tyrannizes us with "political
correctness," dumbs us down, and controls us like children. Imagine, e.g., we
are arrested for speeding while drunk, and the person whose car we hit
presses vengeful charges against us.. We show ourselves as the real victim
by pointing out that some politically-correct, self-serving tyrants have hijacked
the legal system and unfairly demonized drunk driving. These powerful people
of bad character and evil motivation refuse to acknowledge that most
speeding while drunk is not only harmless actuarial studies show that only
a small percentage of the instances of drunk speeding actually result in harm
to people or property but also sometimes unavoidable, profoundly ethical,
and a social good, getting drivers to their destinations faster and in better
spirits. We stress that any studies seeming to show drunk speeding is harmful
are not just unscientific (e.g., none randomly assigns drivers to drunk
speeding and non-drunk speeding conditions) but hopelessly biased (e.g.,
focusing on measures of harm but failing to include measures sensitive to the
numerous benefits of drunk speeding).
19) It's not unethical as long as it would be almost impossible to do things
another way.
20) It's not unethical as long as there are books, articles, or papers claiming
that it is the right thing to do.
21) It's not unethical as long as we can find a consultant who says its OK.
Remaining mindfully aware of the ways that each of us as individuals may be
vulnerable particularly at times of stress or fatigue, of great temptation or
temporary weakness to these cognitive strategies may be an important
aspect of our ability to respond ethically to difficult, complex, constantly

evolving situations, particularly at moments when we are not at our best.

Reminding ourselves of our own unique patterns of vulnerabilityparticularly
when we are tired, stressed, or distressedto these justifications may help us
to keep searching for the most ethical response to the complex, constantly
changing challenges of our work.

Steps in Ethical Decision-Making2

This chapter provides some steps helpful in thinking through how to respond
to an ethical dilemma, taking action, and assuming personal responsibility for
our response. These steps may help us to identify important aspects of a
situation, consider positive and negative consequences of the ways in which
we might respond, and discover better approaches.
The Canadian Psychological Association emphasized the value and
importance of such steps by including 7 in their original ethics code (1986),
and increasing the number to 10 in subsequent editions (1991, 2000). In the
list below, asterisks mark steps that are versions of those that appear in the
CPA code.
Although there are 18 steps listed below, not every step will be relevant to
every situation, and the steps may need to be adapted to fit particular
situations.
1. Identify the situation that requires ethical consideration and decisionmaking.
What is the clearest possible statement of the ethical question or issue? Are
there other valid ways to define the situation? Do the definition's scope,
perspective, assumptions, or wording make it needlessly hard for us to
understand the situation and decide what to do? Do they hide or distort
important aspects?
2. Construct the context.
Reconsider your mental framing (your perspective) about the situation. Do
you have any particular beliefs that might affect your judgement? Bring in as
many stakeholders as you can for a participatory approach, so that the issues
can be discussed and debated. Think about the methods and processes you
might use to approach the problem.
3.* Anticipate who will be affected by your decision.
No one lives in a vacuum. It is rare that our ethical decisions affect only a
single client or a single colleague and no one else. A client may show up for a
The following excerpt is based on chapter 9 in Ethics in Psychotherapy and
Counseling: A Practical Guide (3rd edition) by Ken Pope & Melba Vasquez
(Jossey-Bass/John Wiley, 2007). John Wiley, the book's publisher, holds the
copyright to this material and questions about reprinting it or other uses
involving copyright should be addressed to the publisher. In the course of the
EGAIS project modifications and additions to points have been made.
2

session drunk. How you define your responsibility may influence whether the
client drives home drunk and kills a pedestrian. A colleague may begin to
show signs of Alzheimer's. The choices you make may affect the safety and
well-being of the colleague and the colleague's patients. An insurance claims
manager may refuse to authorize additional sessions for a client you believe
is at risk for killing his wife and children and then committing suicide. Your
supervisor may agree with the manager that no more sessions are needed.
How you determine the most ethical path may help decide whether the family
lives or dies.
4. Dont close the door to debate by using experts as shortcuts.
Instead, involve experts (ethical, economic, scientific, etc.) in the discussion
process and to facilitate discussion. Try to avoid them overruling or
intimidating other participants.
5. Identify the motives behind the situation.
Is there any ambiguity, confusion, or conflict about who the client is (if it is a
situation that involves a therapist-client relationship)? If one person is the
client and someone else is paying your fee, is there any divided loyalty, any
conflict that would influence our judgment? Who is involved in making
decisions, and what are their motives?
6. Delimit your areas of competence.
Are you well-prepared to handle this situation? What steps, if any, could you
take to make yourself more effective? In light of all relevant factors, is there
anyone else who is available that you believe could step in and do a better
job?
7. Review relevant formal ethical standards.
Do the ethical standards speak directly or indirectly to this situation? Are the
ethical standards ambiguous when applied to this situation? Does this
situation involve conflicts within the ethical standards or between the ethical
standards and other (e.g., legal) requirements or values? In what ways, if at
all, do the ethical standards seem helpful, irrelevant, or misdirected when
applied to this situation?
8. Review relevant legal standards.
Do legislation and case law speak directly or indirectly to this situation? Do
the legal standards speak to this situation in a way that is clear? Are there
conflicts within the legal standards or between the law and other requirements
or values? Do the relevant laws seem to support-or at least allow-the most
ethical response to the situation, or do they seem to work against or block the
most ethical response? Would it be helpful to consult an attorney? Some
examples for ICT development in Europe include EU directives, Human
Rights Act, privacy and data storage laws.
9. Review the relevant research and theory.
Is there new research or theory that helps us to conceptualize, understand, or
respond to the situation? One occupational hazard of a field with such
diverse approaches--cognitive, psychodynamic, behavioral, feminist,

psychobiosocial, family, multicultural, existential, to name but a few--is that we

often lose touch with the research and theory emerging outside our own
theoretical orientation.
10.* Reflect on yourself to determine possible biases, conflict of interest, or
self-interest might affect your ethical judgment and reasoning.
Does the situation make you angry, sad, or afraid? Do you find yourself eager
to please someone (or an organization)? Do you desperately want to avoid
conflict? Do you find yourself concerned that doing what you believe is most
ethical will get you into trouble, will make someone mad at you, will be
second-guessed by colleagues who disagree with you, or would be hard to
square with the law? Will doing what seems ethically right cost you time,
money, referrals, prestige, a promotion, your job, or your license?
11. Consider what effects, if any, that social, cultural, religious, or similar
factors may have on the situation and on identifying ethical responses.
The same act may take on sharply different meanings in different societies,
cultures, or religions. What seems ethical in one context may violate
fundamental values in another society, culture, or spiritual tradition. Are you
overlooking any relevant contexts? Does the situation include social, cultural,
religious, or similar conflicts?
12. Consider consultation.
Is there anyone who would likely provide useful consultation for this specific
situation? Is there an acknowledged expert in the relevant areas? Is there
someone who has faced a similar situation and handled it well-or who might
tell you what does not work and what pitfalls to avoid? Is there someone
whose perspective might be helpful? Is there someone whose judgment you
trust?
13. Try to adopt the perspective of each person who will be affected.
Putting yourself in the shoes of those who will be affected by your decisions
can change your understanding and help you discover what you believe will
be the most ethical response to a difficult situation. You can ask yourself:
what would each person consider the most ethical response? In this way you
can try to to compensate for some of the distortion that may occur from seeing
things only from your own perspective. One example is what Jones (1979;
see also Gawronski , 2003; Gilbert & Malone , 1995; Weary, Vaughn, Stewart,
Edwards, 2006) called "correspondence bias." Although we often explain our
own behavior in specific situations as due to external factors, we tend to
attribute the behavior of others to their dispositions. Another example is what
Meehl (1977) called a "double-standard of morals" (p. 232). We tend to hold
explanations provided by other people to much more scientifically and
logically rigorous standards than we use for our own explanations.
14.* Decide what to do, and then review or reconsider it.
Once you have decided on a course of action, you can--if time permits-rethink it. Sometimes simply making a decision to choose one option and
exclude all others makes you suddenly aware of flaws in that option that had

gone unnoticed up to that point.

15.* Act on and assume personal responsibility for your decision.
In some cases, trying to weigh ethical options, reconcile ethical conflicts, and
discover the most ethical response--the steps leading up to taking action--are
the hard part. Once the decision is made, acting is relatively easier. In other
cases, thinking through the situation may seem relatively easy-acting is hard.
The most ethical response may seem to come at overwhelming personal risk
or cost. When risks or costs overwhelm us, it is a natural temptation to blur or
evade personal responsibility.
16.* Evaluate the results.
What happened when you acted? To what extent, if at all, did your action
bring about the expected consequences? To what extent, if at all, were there
unforeseen consequences? Knowing what you know now, would you have
acted in the same way or chosen a different response to the situation?
17.* Assume personal responsibility for the consequences of your action.
If your response to the situation now seems-with the benefit of hindsight-to
have been wrong or has caused negative consequences, what steps, if any,
do you need to take to address the consequences of your decision and
action? If it seems to have been incomplete, what else needs to be done to
address the situation? Have your actions and their consequences brought
about new ethical challenges?
18.* Consider implications for improving policy and practice for next time.
Did this situation and the effects of your response to it suggest any useful
possibilities in the areas of preparation, planning and prevention? Are there
practical steps that would head off future problems or enable you and others
to address them more effectively? Would changes in policies, procedures, or
practices help?