Author: Mykolas Deikus

About happiness, killing and mobbing

Imagine that the plane you are piloting is about to crash into the ground. Into an area of blocks of flats with thousands of innocent residents. You can save those residents by directing the plane to a small village. There will be fewer deaths. What will you choose?

The answer may indicate how you will act not in such dramatic situations as this. For example, how you will choose to deal with an unfriendly colleague if you are an ordinary employee. Or, if you are a manager, the answer may indicate how you will handle a conflict between subordinates and what the consequences of this decision will be.

Vaccine against mobbing

The described situation about the falling plane is one of the examples of a moral decision test. For example, when answering this test, you may decide that several lives can be sacrificed in order to save more lives. If you chose this decision, utilitarian ethics is closer to you.

Utilitarianism is based on the principle of “the greatest happiness.” It means that we do the right thing if our actions maximize the overall happiness or well-being of a larger number of people.

This principle underpins a frequent law, and some scholars believe that utilitarianism is a long-sought vaccine against psychological violence, including mobbing. For example, researchers from the University of Nottingham, who recently published the results of a study on the problems of occupational safety in Europe, believe that it is managers inspired by utilitarianism who would take the best care of their subordinates.

What is the basis for this view?

The scales of happiness

Simply put, scholars who advocate utilitarian ethics in organizations believe in rationality of managers.

Mobbing, as prolonged, intense psychological violence, harms not only the victim. Mobbing in a department or organization leads to deterioration of the psychological climate, lower productivity, loss of income and damage to the organizations reputation. In other words, mobbing makes most employees and the entire organization unhappy.

Since managers are considered rational (in most cases, this should not be doubted), they weigh up the fact that everyone would be happier without mobbing. Once they have considered this, they try to avoid it by any means.

So, economic logic should be an excellent safeguard. However, not everything is as simple as it seems at first glance.

Peter’s misfortune

Let’s look at another real-life example. Peter (as journalists write, his last name is known), complained to his boss that several colleagues were treating him very badly. They were gossiping, alienating customers, ridiculing, etc. In the vernacular, they were mistreating him. This example does not yet indicate whether mobbing is taking place, but the person is clearly suffering.

After hearing Peter’s complaint, the boss decided that the matter was not worth paying attention to. The main argument is that this is the only complaint she heard in the last few years. On the contrary, she knows that the colleagues Peter is complaining about are really great. The whole department is happy with them, so there is no point in worrying about one complaint (the answer is not literal, but that is the gist of it).

So, figuratively speaking, the boss put Peter’s misfortune and the happiness of the majority on the scales. The happiness of the majority outweighed.

Of course, one can suspect that Peter’s boss did not recognize the psychological violence or “simply washed her hands” of it, because she did not know how to deal with the problem. However, the arguments she has put forward are very much like utilitarian ethics and not really based on economic logic.

The solution – without artificial intelligence

Since humans do not have artificial intelligence installed in their heads, moral decision-making is influenced not only by mind but also by emotions. And, if we are not psychopaths, empathy and conscience still work.

Various studies show that utilitarian ethics looks nice only in theory. Most people may not get the happiness they were promised, because decision-making is influenced by sympathies (e.g., a person who hurts the colleague is a friend), selfishness, stress, group pressure, and many other circumstances.

In addition, it is important to remember that mobbing cases have another peculiarity: the victim confronted with the manipulator or a group of them is “painted” in the blackest colours. Therefore, both co-workers and managers are convinced that getting rid of the victim will make everyone happier.

Inner advisor

Empathy and conscience are mentioned here not by accident. These are qualities that most people have, although differently developed (we will talk about narcissists and psychopaths next time). I have no doubt that not everyone would solve the test task mentioned in the introduction “out of hand”. It is namely because of the voice of empathy and conscience.

Many may not have heard of the Latin term “synderesis”. It refers to an innate human ability to distinguish between good and evil. Figuratively speaking, it is the “counselor” of conscience or an inner moral compass. It is based on the so-called Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.

In practice, this principle means that when deciding whether or not to stand up for the victim being persecuted by colleagues, we imagine ourselves in that victim’s shoes. That is, every time we answer the question: If I were the victim, would I want someone to stand up for me?

Although synderesis, an idea developed by Thomas Aquinas, is more commonly found in philosophical and theological texts, in recent years, it has attracted considerable interest from scholars studying business and management ethics. Research shows that the Catholic idea developed by Thomas Aquinas is relevant not only in secular Western organizations but also in Muslim environments.

The way in which the principle of synderesis can be useful in mobbing prevention is examined in detail in a new scientific article “Synderesis vs. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Bullying Prevention”.

Mykolas Deikus
Junior Researcher
Faculty of Catholic Theology
Vytautas Magnus University

Funding was provided by the Research Council of Lithuania (LMTLT), contract No. S-MIP-23-34.

To cite:
Deikus, M. (2025). When killing brings more happiness, or how to protect from mobbing. Available at: https://www.mobingas.lt/en/when-killing-brings-more-happiness-or-how-to-protect-from-mobbing/

Prepared based on the following study: Vveinhardt, J., & Deikus, M. (2025). Synderesis vs. Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in Workplace Bullying Prevention. Social Inclusion, 13, Article 8406. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.8406