Did the Pedestrian Die?
Fons Trompenaars
Fons Trompenaars (2018), Did the Pedestrian Die? Ethics across cultures.
Trompenaars Fons, Did the Pedestrian Die? Capstone; 1ed. March 14, 2003.
The story that follows, created by American Stouffer and Toby, is an exercise used in our workshops. It takes the form of a dilemma that measures universal and particularist responses.
*Stouffer, S. A. and J. Toby (1951), "Role conflict and personality, American Journal of Sociology, 56: 395-406.
You are riding in a car driven by a close friend. He hits a pedestrian. You know he was going at least 35 miles per hour in an area of the city where the maximum allowed speed is 20 miles per hour. There are no witnesses. His lawyer says that if you testify under oath that he was driving only 20 miles per hour, it may save him from serious consquences. What right has your friend to expect you to protect him?
A. My friend has a definite right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.
B. He has some right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.
C. He has no right as a friend to expect me to testify to the lower figure.
What do you think you would do in view of the obligations of a sworn witness and the obligation to your friend?
D. Testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.
E. Not testify that he was going 20 miles an hour.
Figure 1. shows the result of putting these questions to a variety of nationalities. The percentage represents those who answered that the friend had no right or some right and would then not testify (C or B+E)
Figure 1. The Car and the Pedestrian
... Time and again in our workshop, the universalists' response is that as the seriousness of the accident increase, the obligation to help their friend decrease. They seem to be saying to themselves, "The law was broken, and the serious condition of the pedestrian underlines the importance of upholding his law." This attitude suggests that universalism is rarely used to the exclusion of particularism, rather that it forms the first principle in the process of moral reasoning. Particular consequences remind us of the need for universal laws.
Particularist cultures, however, are rather more likely to support their friend as the pedestrian's injuries increase. They seem to reason, "My friend needs my help more than ever now that he is in serious trouble with the law." Universalists would regard such an attitude as corrupt and unethical. What if we all started to lie on behalf of those close to us? ... The particularistic cultures, on the contrary, would call the universalists corrupt because you can't trust them since they would not even help their friends...
...
"How can you have integrity if you don't tell the truth in court. And a good friend would never ask me to lie." Fortunately we were interrupted by a South Korean who said: "I disagree John, how can you have integrity if you don't help your friend?"... As a human being we share the dilemma... And by the dialogue I realized that we as human beings share the same dilemmas. But I also realized that in case we have to make a decision our cultural context numbs half of our logics.
감상:
우리 한국인의 진영논리는 세계적 논문에서도 여지없이 드러난다.
(2021. 7. 30)
