Pseudo-moral justifications (Moral disengagement, part 2)

In our August 30 post, we introduced psychologist Albert Bandura‘s mechanisms of moral disengagement. Today we begin to explore the six strategies Bandura has identified.

Bandura indicates that often people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane  behavior to make it into something different from–that is, more moral than–what it actually is. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings.”

Bandura uses the term “moral justification” to describe this process.

When political/military leaders want their followers to go to war and kill “the enemy,” they argue that the killing is justified, even “moral.” They often claim that war has moral goals such as fighting oppression, making the world safe for democracy,  spreading peace, and so forth.

In this regard,  Bandura cites Voltaire, who said “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

In our view, Bandura has identified an important process manipulated by people in power. This process has been effective in getting ordinary people to kill and torture, while still viewing themselves as moral and even as followers of the Golden Rule.

On the other hand, we dislike the ambiguous use of  “moral” in front of “justifications.” It suggests that the justifications are “moral” rather than “pseudo-moral.” For this kind of moral disengagement, we suggest that a better term would be “spuriously moral justifications” or “pseudo-moral justifications.”

Over the next few weeks, we will continue to explore mechanisms of both moral disengagement and moral engagement. Alternating posts between the two types of mechanisms, we hope to illustrate the spectrum of moral behaviors as they apply to engaging peace.

The next post will address the reciprocal of  pseudo-moral justifications–specifically, principled moral arguments.

Dr. Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Note: This post was adapted from my previously published article in Peace Psychology (a publication of the American Psychological Association), Spring, 2009.

Theories of war and peace

Why do people go to war? Are they just naturally aggressive? Are they “blank slates” who are conditioned by rewards and punishments to fight?

War cemetery photo from Bavaria, Germany
Durnbach War Cemetery, Bavaria, Germany. (From WikiMedia Commons; Permission granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.)

A few psychologists have developed theoretical “constructs” that may shed light on these questions. These ideas could prove useful in understanding the apparent readiness of humans to tolerate and participate in wars and other inhumanities at the urging of their political and military leaders.

In this blog, we will discuss some of these theoretical frameworks.

We use the term “constructs” to remind readers that “constructs” are what theories address. That is, philosophers and scientists impose their own theoretical constructions on reality to try to make sense out of it. They invent terms like “aggressive instinct,” “fight or flight,” and “need for power” to try to explain the behaviors they see.

The ultimate test of any theory is its (probably temporary) success in helping people make sense out of the complexities of their experience.

Our goal will not be to convince you of the rightness or wrongness of any theory. Rather, we invite you to consider with us the extent to which the theories help us understand why throughout history so many people (but by no means all of them) have seemed so ready to slaughter and be slaughtered.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology