London anti-war protest. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (From WikiMedia Commons)
What does it mean, in real life, to be “morally engaged” in response to issues like inhumane behavior?
This question is difficult and complex. According to psychologist Albert Bandura (2002), being morally engaged involves exercising moral agency, which has dual aspects — inhibitive and proactive.
“Inhibitive” moral agency. The inhibitive form of moral agency allows individuals to refrain from behaving inhumanely (e.g., refusing to participate in the military, or disobeying orders to torture someone).
Individuals who demonstrate inhibitive moral agency are described by Bandura as having a strong sense of self-worth that allows them to resist pressures to behave unjustly or immorally. They do this despite the likelihood of punishment for such resistance, for example, through jail terms.
“Proactive” moral agency. The proactive form of moral agency moves people to take positive action in favor of a moral belief–e.g., actively protesting war, providing refuge to refugees, etc.
When exercising proactive morality, people act in the name of humane principles even when experiencing pressure to engage in expedient and harmful behavior.
Another psychologist, Theresa A. Thorkildsen, argued that moral engagement inhibits inhumane behavior and promotes humane behavior because it is powered by a vision of how the world should be.
There are many famous examples of people who exercised both forms of agency in service of moral engagement (consider the actions of Father Daniel Berrigan during the Vietnam War). In addition to the familiar exemplars, you have probably known others in your own lifetime.
Can you think of people who have shown moral engagement? (Perhaps you are one of the examples yourself!)
Please share their stories with us. Could their actions be characterized as showing inhibitive or proactive moral agency–or both?
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology
Little Town of Bethlehem Story Outline
Little Town of Bethlehem, a documentary film, follows the story of three men of three different faiths and their lives in Israel and Palestine. The story explores each man’s choice of nonviolent action amidst a culture of overwhelming violence.
The film examines the struggle to promote equality through nonviolent engagement in the midst of incredible violence that has dehumanized all sides. Sami’s story begins as a young boy living in the Israeli-occupied West Bank; Yonatan’s starts on an Israeli military base; and Ahmad’s begins in a Palestinian refugee camp.
Their three stories are interwoven through the major events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, starting with the 1972 massacre at the Munich Olympics and following through the first Intifada, suicide bombings in Israel, the Oslo Accords, the assassination of Yitzchak Rabin, and the second Intifada. Sami, Yonatan, and Ahmad each describe the events from their unique perspective, interjecting personal reflections and explaining how these events led them to become involved in the nonviolence movement.
In Bethlehem, the city where it is said that God became man, Sami just wants to be seen as human. First learning about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a teen, he began lecturing about nonviolence in high school. Later, Sami traveled to India to learn more about Gandhi. As the result of his discoveries, he founded the organization Holy Land Trust to promote nonviolence in the Palestinian community.
Yonatan embraced his father’s legacy as a pilot in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and fulfilled his own dream of becoming an IDF helicopter pilot. However, his journey led him to the astonishing decision to join with 26 other IDF pilots who publicly refused to participate in missions that would lead to civilian casualties. Co-founding the organization Combatants for Peace, made up of former Israeli and Palestinian combatants, Yonatan struggles to reconcile his love for his country with his growing opposition to the Israeli occupation.
After studying in Spain, Ahmad returned to Bethlehem to become a nonviolence trainer. Despite the daily challenges of living in a refugee camp, Ahmad remains committed to his community and risks his life and livelihood in nonviolent actions to bring an end to oppression.
For their work, Sami and Ahmad have been labeled as “Israeli collaborators” by some within the Palestinian community, and are seen as a threat to security by the Israeli military. By refusing to participate in offensive military actions against Palestinian civilians, Yonatan has been branded a traitor by some Israelis and can no longer work in his homeland.
All three men have had their lives threatened by members of their own communities as a result of their work. Sami, Yonatan, and Ahmad continue to embrace their common humanity and equality for all, daring to have the hope that peace in the Holy Land can be achieved through nonviolent struggle.
Personal stories are nice but do not represent the truth – which is that Israel has been an aggressive violent colonial state since it was first conceptualized by Theodore Herzl who wrote way back in 1895: “”spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment…Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly.” (search part either part of quote at books.google for lots of sources) Deal with that issue from your own moral viewpoint on aggression/colonialism/etc. and you will be asserting your truth, ala Gandhi…
The root of moral engagement lies in the fact that no man was born with an immediate evil character. This is what drives people who engage in moral actions to do the right thing in accordance with man’s basic instinct of what is right, humanely speaking. What propels other people to disengage morally is the experience in life that taught them to do so.
Thank you for your comment, Deborah. I agree that people are not born evil, and we can see in children a wonderful potential for
empathy and affiliation. It is a shame that so many of them are then taught to hate and hurt.