VitorMSAlmeida.pt

This past weekend, I came across some contradictory behavior from public entities in the news, and it started me wondering about the possible causes.

The incompatibility between ethics and behavior is a classic theme in philosophy, psychology, and behavioral ethics. It refers to the frequent fact that people do not always act according to the ethical principles they defend or recognize as correct. This is not just individual hypocrisy, but a widely studied human phenomenon.

Basic Concepts:

Ethics: It is the rational and philosophical reflection on what is good, just, or right. It seeks universal or consistent foundations for actions (e.g., “should I tell the truth? Why?”).

Morality: Refers to the customs, norms, and values ​​of a society or group, which are more practical and contextual.

Behavior: What people actually do in their daily lives.

The incompatibility arises when there is a gap between what is considered ethically correct (moral judgment) and the actual action.

Main explanations for this incompatibility:

Akrasia (weakness of will): Aristotelian concept. A person knows what is best (e.g., “should study/work/tell the truth”), but acts against that judgment due to impulse, passion, convenience, or lack of self-control. Aristotle saw this as common, not as ignorance (as Socrates thought).

Cognitive dissonance: Leon Festinger’s theory. When behavior contradicts beliefs, psychological discomfort arises. People resolve this by justifying the act (“everyone does it,” “it was just once,” “I had no choice”) or by changing the belief, instead of changing the behavior.

Behavioral ethics: Studies why well-intentioned people make bad choices. Factors such as: Situational pressure (obedience to authority, conformity).

Moral disengagement (justifications that “turn off” the ethical sense).

Self-image bias (“I’m a good person, so this isn’t that serious”). Selfish interests, fatigue, or “gradual slips” (small steps toward unethical behavior).

Moral hypocrisy: People (including ethics experts) often don’t behave better than others.

Studies show that ethics professors are no more ethical in their daily lives. We talk about values, but the context (rewards, punishments, anonymity) has a greater influence.

Common examples:

Someone who defends the environment but travels by plane frequently or consumes excessively or has more than 2 descendants.

Professionals who know codes of ethics but succumb to pressure for results (e.g., meter readers falsifying balance sheets “to save the company”).

People who criticize corruption but accept “shortcuts” when convenient. In daily life: knowing that exercise/focus is good, but procrastinating.

Why does this happen so often?

Human nature: Evolution prioritizes survival and immediate status over abstract principles.

Social context: Group norms and incentives matter more than internal convictions.

Cognitive limitations: Imperfect self-awareness and easy rationalization.

How to reduce incompatibility?

Ethical virtue (Aristotle): Building habits through repeated practice, not just reflection.

Self-awareness and honesty: Recognizing biases.

External structures: Clear rules, accountability, aligned incentives.

Constant reflection: Questioning “why did I do that?” and learning from dissonances.

This tension is inevitable, but recognizing it is the first step towards a more coherent life. Ethics is not just theory—it gains strength when confronted with real behavior.

I, and I can only speak for myself, have tried (and so far I think I have succeeded) to set an example by matching what I say with my actions, but also to understand others and not just “talk” but to present coherent replacement solutions.