What can we do to boost ethical behavior in our society?

 When I started reading the  The Neuroscience of Morality/www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-brain-science-reveals-about-ethical-decline-and-moral-growth/, it seemed obvious and not very helpful.  However, the quotes below support actions described further below.  I’d be interested in whether you agree that we need to instill ethics more and your thoughts as to how we can do so.

Quotes

At the end of page 3: “It's easier for people to act morally when they embrace bottom-line values that they'll uphold no matter what. Gonell's grandfather would remind him, "Never tell lies" - a principle that stayed with him.”

From page 8, I picked the following quotes:

·        “At an institutional level, one way to ward off downward moral slides might be to increase the penalties tied to each stage of moral descent-say, by announcing zero-tolerance antifraud company policies-and to underscore the rewards of holding the moral line. Leaders of organizations can, for instance, swiftly address transgressions and help employees get comfortable with admitting mistakes. In a Maastricht University study, participants whose bosses showed ethical leadership engaged in fewer corrupt acts such as offering bribes. Generally speaking, fraud and cover-ups seem less enticing in ethical workplace cultures, and telling the truth feels like an obligation, not an act of career sabotage.”

·        “Once people decide to act with integrity, their resolve is often socially contagious.”

·        “Psychologists such as Zeno Franco of the Medical College of Wisconsin suggest cultivating what he calls the "heroic imagination": our individual capacity to consider ahead of time what we'll do in situations that call for moral courage, what values we will stand behind even under extreme pressure. In this kind of "What would I do?" scenario, the brain's frontal cortex helps people anticipate how they will feel when they make certain moral choices, and those predicted feelings can influence their decisions in the long run.

Actions

1. The above explain why the “broken windows” law enforcement policy is successful.  It was formulated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in a 1982 Atlantic article [1] and implemented by Police Chief William Bratton when Rudy Giuliani* was mayor of New York, with outstanding results.
2. Parents and other role models should demonstrate and emphasize character.  That includes explaining our actions and considerations to our chidren.
3. We should teach about heroes.  We should teach DEI by showing heroes of various backgrounds showing the same moral fiber and goals, without categorizing them.  We should allow our sameness to show through naturally and demonstrate that people with diverse ethnicities, experiences and ways of looking at situations help us by providing more food and music diversity as well as better ways to solve problems.
4. Schools and streets should be named after individuals, and it should be made easy to learn why those people are being honored.  For example, QR codes could be posted on street signposts.
5. It is beneficial to protect religious rights, partly because religion instills character.  (I think the current Supreme Court has done an excellent job in this regard.)
6. More discussion or research seems appropriate as regards dealing with the frailties of our heroes.
1. I favor acknowledging that our Founding Fathers included slaveowners and did not accord rights to women despite their “all men are created equal” beliefs. 
2. However, emphasizing these failings might make it easier for people to later justify their unethical behavior because “everyone does something unethical”.
3. Perhaps we should focus on those historic failures as a societal failure rather than focusing on the individuals.  The bigger issue is how to avoid such travesties, rather than to assign blame.
4. We should understand the circumstances that existed at the time.  For example, in Robert E. Lee’s time, few people had traveled outside their home state.  Loyalty to their state exceeded loyalty to the federal government.  (Robert E. Lee had a great amount of integrity and only reluctantly decided to serve the South.)  Understanding then-current social thoughts does not excuse unethical behavior but does explain factors that contributed to it. 
5. We should clearly applaud those people who rejected improper societal norms, whether or not their efforts to overturn improper behavior were successful.
7. We should consider criticism we receive.  Why should other societies respect us when our vocabulary includes terms such as “plausible deniability”?
8. We should hold our institutions accountable.  We, as voters and citizens, don’t do this well.

*It should go without saying that supporting Rudy Giuliani's (some of) actions as mayor does not mean I support things he did later in his life.

Redistricting to encourage purple districts

 

A friend of mine suggested using AI to draw political districts with the following parameters:

1. Population difference between districts, largest to smallest, <5%
2. Contiguous districts
3. Districts should respect political boundaries, cities, counties.
4. Districts should respect physical boundaries, rivers, etc.
5. Districts should be as compact as possible.
6. Re-districting be limited to 10 year intervals.

I suggested a 7^th parameter: “Favor creating districts in which neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have more than 55% of the registered voters.”

Why might we want to do that?  Before listing the reasons, I’d like to stress that the districts would still adhere to the other rules.  This might simply stretch a district to the [east] instead of to the [north].

1. According to 2026 analysis from FairVote and the Cook Political Report, 81% to 85% of our 435 U.S. House districts are considered "safe" for one party.  This has developed due to one-party gerrymanders, to the parties agreeing to create safe districts for each other, and to housing patterns.
2. In safe districts, the election is determined in the primary.  Extremists are more likely than moderates to vote in primaries.  When primary voters can be confident that whoever they nominate will be elected, they can satisfy their extremist preferences.  So, extremists are nominated in the dominant party’s primary, then are elected because it is a “safe” district.
3. Members of the minority party justifiably feel disenfranchised.  They have no chance of winning and don’t even have any moderating influence.
4. Moderates of the majority party, whether they participated in the primary or not may feel disenfranchised, even though they had a shot at influencing the election in the primary.
5. The process encourages political disengagement by members of minority parties and perhaps independents and moderates of the dominant party.
6. There is little penalty or discipline for incumbents who perform their job in extremely partisan fashion.  With purple jurisdictions, a weak incumbent is much more likely to be replaced.
7. The advantage of incumbents is enhanced with safe districts.  Thus, safe districts increase the average age of political representatives.  Generally, that creates risks due to declining health and capabilities.  It generally reduces legislative familiarity with current technology, etc.  And it underrepresents young people.
8. Generally, it is very good from us to hear from each other.  For example, rural and city areas are not islands; we are interdependent.  Thus, it can be helpful to have a mix of rural and urban in a district.

I admit that if all districts had the same percentage distribution, each district would have a majority of the dominant party.  Hence Congress could theoretically have 100% of its members from the dominant party.  Similarly, the 14% Black voters could have no Black representative.  I don’t think we vote so arbitrarily, hope that we won’t do so, and believe strongly that we should educate to undermine such “identity” voting.  Other steps could be taken to address such issues, but I those are separate topics.

Fundamental Problems in Our Society

 Our society has very serious fundamental problems.

1. Most politicians of both political parties divide us because enraged voters are more likely to vote, more likely to contribute money, and more likely to attempt to influence other voters.
2. Most media sources amplify the divide because it means more eyeballs, which means more money for advertising. 
3. Some non-profits also divide us because it leads to more donations.
4. Many schools teach people to see themselves as victims and often teach diversity backwards, emphasizing superficial differences (~identity politics), then indicating that people should get along instead of teaching our similar goals and motivations and pointing out that we can achieve our goals better with input from people with diverse experiences.  They trap inner-city students in inadequate educational institutions.
5. Few people do much to correct this situation.  They continue to support culpable politicians without protest; they engage in the media; and they continue to support their same charities blindly.