Every psychological theory deals with our search for pleasure, our quest to satisfy the urges that society tries to keep in check. There are so many times in life when an opportunity arises that allows us to do something that we know is not quite right. When those circumstances arise, we are forced to confront our own morality; we either choose to “stay the course” or we create a series of justifications that allow us to do the very thing we “know” is not right.
As children, these choices are fairly innocuous. They might involve taking a cookie before dinner. Sometimes children follow the rules. Sometimes they justify – “It was only one cookie,” or “I was really hungry and I promise I will eat dinner anyway,” or “You are so mean!” Another choice a child might confront is staying up reading a book under the covers even though it’s time for lights out. Again, one might follow the rule. One might create justifications – “I was at a really good part and I had to finish it,” or “I’m not tired anyway!” These seem innocent, but really, it’s a difficult moral dilemma for a child: do I follow the rule or do what I want?
As we get older, the internal conflict is the same. We apply the age appropriate cognitive and emotional strategies we have to the problem and settle on our solution to it. What changes, however, is the level of risk associated with the choice we make. The risk involves how the choice impacts our sense of self – the way we think about ourselves. It also involves the consequences that society may impose on us if we are caught breaking the rule.
Let’s explore the idea of “because you can” a bit more. There are many activities that represent a minimal risk for getting caught. For example, people drive over the speed limit all the time; they rarely think they are doing anything wrong and are often angry when caught and given a speeding ticket. After all, why can cars go 100 mph if we are supposed to drive 25mph on a city street? It is not until someone is seriously injured that society reminds us that this speed rule exists for a reason – to keep others and us as safe as possible. So, just because we can speed doesn’t mean we should speed.
People who work in offices often take home office supplies. Sometimes this is accidental and sometimes it is intentional. Taking home a few pens/pencils, paperclips or whatever is justified by “I work long hours and I don’t get paid enough” or “It’s just a stapler, it doesn’t cost the company anything,” or “everyone does it.” The justifications tell us that we know it is wrong – we know we should not – but we are going to do it anyway because we can.
An older child might face a choice regarding whether or not to cheat on an exam; an adult might face a choice regarding whether or not to cheat on their partner. The justifications created are often quite similar: “I had to cheat because (everyone else cheats, the situation was unfair, no one understands me and the stress I’m under). The choice to cheat can impact the sense of self in changing the way we think about ourselves (honest/dishonest or smart/less smart). The consequences if caught by society can be similar as well – some type of ostracism (detention/expulsion; separation/divorce).
All of these scenarios are examples of moral dilemmas that challenge us to consider whether we should or should not do something and each decision could affect our sense of self.
A quick rule of thumb for evaluating how we will feel after a decision is the number of justifications we need to create. The more justifications created, the more uncomfortable we are with our potential decision. Some justifications are Freudian in nature; we justify our Id impulses by determining that our pleasure is more important than someone else’s or that it is acceptable to gain our pleasure at the expense of another’s pain. Some justifications are cognitive and are based on our irrational thinking that “everyone” is doing it or would do it or that we are the “only one” not engaging in this behavior. Some justifications are behaviorist in nature; the reward is the only consideration. If we can get the reward while avoiding the punishment then we will do the action. Finally, some justifications are humanist in nature. A humanist justification is best understood by rephrasing the “should” to a want or need. If one says I should cheat on my significant other, the justifications flow more easily than if one says I want/need to cheat on my significant other. The word choice helps clarify not only the problem, but the motivation and emotion behind it.
The long and short of it: it is not always easy to look ourselves in the mirror after we choose to do something simply because we could. So, don’t do something because you can, do it because it’s right for you.