homicide – Engaging Peace

Oracle, Optimist, Ostrich, or Obfuscator? Part 5. The slippery slope to moral disengagement

Posted on September 29, 2015September 29, 2015 by kathiemm

Lethal injection room at San Quentin, built in 2010
Image is in the public domain.

Moral disengagement, as discussed frequently on this blog, allows individuals to participate in or at least tolerate inhuman behaviors such as homicide and torture. Major forms of moral disengagement include misrepresenting, minimizing, or denying the consequences of one’s violence; making advantageous comparisons between one’s own violence and other forms of violence that are made to seem more frightening or odious; and displacing or diffusing responsibility for inhumane behavior—e.g., by “blaming the victim.”

Unlike members of that notorious group, the military-industrial complex, Steven Pinker does not explicitly endorse violence and other forms of inhumane behavior; as far as I know he is not encouraging the United States corporate power structure to become involved in yet another war. However, he appears to relish the details he provides on the horrors of human violence in the past and to be wearing extremely effective blinders relating to the often deadly exploitation of poorer nations by the West. Moreover, in lauding the peacefulness he attributes to the West, he uses processes identified by Albert Bandura as forms of moral disengagement.

Consider, for example, his assertion that “daily existence is very different if you always have to worry about being abducted, raped or killed”—a state of anxiety that he views as gone from today’s enlightened democratic societies. Is he right or is he minimizing the dangers facing many immigrants and people of color in the nation in which he has become a highly paid celebrity?

And how about his claim that “by standards of the mass atrocities in human history, the lethal injection of a murderer in Texas, or an occasional hate crime in which a member of an ethnic minority group is intimidated by hooligans is pretty mild stuff”? Does that assertion smack of both minimization and advantageous comparison?

Also, in discussing the aberrant period of increased violence in the 1960s and 1970s, which he views as hitting the African American community particularly hard, Pinker suggests, “widespread fatherlessness can lead to violence” because “all those young men who aren’t bringing up their children are hanging out with one another competing for dominance instead.” Can we see an element of displacement of responsibility here?

What do you think?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

“Lone” gunman? Think again.

Posted on January 24, 2011April 18, 2021 by kathiemm

Jared Loughner "flag"--graphic with image plus words such as "violence means ends" and "speak kill propaganda listen" — “Jared Flag” by Eric Gulliver, 2011

Jared Loughner’s deadly attack on innocent civilians in Tucson, Arizona, was morally reprehensible. Maybe he is mentally ill, but he is also the product of a society with an enormous tolerance for violence.

He may be considered a “lone” gunman, but the social macrosystem in which he grew up undoubtedly contributed to his actions. To give just a few examples, the U.S. is a country in which:

An estimated 1,740 children died in 2008 as a result of abuse and/or neglect. Yet the financing of social programs to address such problems has been constantly under attack;
The annual murder rate was 29^thamong the 31 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The frequency of homicide in the U.S. is more similar to rates in Haiti and Albania than to other Western countries such as Canada, France, and Spain.

Also in 21^st century U.S.,

Pressure on lawmakers from pro-gun interests far outweighs advocacy for the right of some individuals to vote; and
Incitement to violence on the airwaves and Internet routinely trounces civility and dialogue.

Don’t believe the rhetoric that “words don’t kill, only weapons do.” Words are weapons that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Ask women in battered women’s shelters what was more destructive to them—vicious words or fists. Ask anyone who has gone through military training about the use of words to make them ready to murder and maim. Propaganda is very popular among unscrupulous leaders because it works.

Finally, remember that the U.S. is also home to millions who grew up to live the ethic of reciprocity, to choose a life of service, to love rather than hate, and to err, apologize, and forgive.

To read the words of a true war hero, see this essay by Ron Kovic, then ask yourself what do we need to do to encourage the likes of Ron Kovic rather than the likes of Jared Loughner.

And if you have never read Ron Kovic’s memoir, Born on the Fourth of July, or seen the movie based on it, please do. Ron may have lost the use of his legs in war, but he is freer than all the people who are bound up in hatred.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Attending to negative consequences (Moral engagement, part 7)

Posted on November 1, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Marine sargeant comforts girlfriend before leaving for Arabian Gulf region. (U.S. Navy photo in public domain; from WikiMedia Commons

It’s not easy to exercise the form of moral engagement known as attending to negative consequences. People in power are reluctant to reveal the negative consequences of their acts of aggression.

Consider these examples:

Former President George Bush’s refusal to hold a public ceremony when bodies were returned to the United States from various war zones.
The civilian casualties inflicted by American servicemen and women and drones that are covered up by the government and mainstream media.
The reluctance of ordinary people to think about the murder, torture, dismembering, and terrorizing of men, women, and children in which Americans participate either directly or indirectly. What can be more horrifying than to think of oneself as collusive in such activities, even if only indirectly through doing nothing?

A first step towards moral engagement in response to cover-ups is obtaining the kind of information provided by Wikileaks, the progressive electronic media, and groups such as Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

The next step is to act:

Read and weigh the available information.
Insist on public transparency in regard to the effects of our government’s military policies.
Hold public officials responsible for their behavior.
Learn who among the nation’s politicians has the courage to speak out against the slaughter our country has caused in various parts of the world.
Exercise your right and responsibility to vote for pro-peace candidates.
Attend to the consequences of participation in armed aggression for our own service people and their families; think about the impact of the escalating numbers of cases of PTSD, suicide, homicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and family violence and disruption for the service people, their families, their communities and the health of the nation.

Finally, consider the devastating and long-lasting effects of war on the environment–to be discussed more in future posts. In tomorrow’s U.S. election, beware of political candidates who reap enormous profits from the “harvesting” and selling of fossil fuels and scoff at the overwhelming evidence not just for global warming but other catastrophic environmental events.

See the documentary The 11th Hour and think twice about awarding your votes to profiteers who deny the consequences of their profiteering.

And remember to vote.

Vote for peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology