Taking responsibility for one’s own behavior: Yom Kippur

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we welcome another guest post from Dr. Hilda Perlitsh, a social psychologist with expertise in the areas of organizational psychology, career development, and cross-cultural issues.]

Jews praying in the synagogue on Yom Kippur by Maurycy Gottlieb
Jews praying in the synagogue on Yom Kippur by Maurycy Gottlieb (Image in public domain)

Yom Kippur,” Hebrew for “Day of Atonement,” instituted in Biblical times, mandated in Leviticus, is considered to be the most significant holy day of the year among the Jewish people.

This ancient, enduring observance completes a 10 day period, the High Holy Days or “Days of Awe,” which begins at the New Year, Rosh Hashanah.

During this period behaviors towards others and to G-d are examined and one engages in reflection and repentance. G-d inscribes each person’s fate in the “Book of Life” for the coming year and these decisions are “sealed” at the end of Yom Kippur.

The day itself is characterized as a “complete Sabbath” prescribing “prayer, repentance and charity,” requiring a 25 hour fast, and abstinence from labor and pleasures. The Yom Kippur service includes the recitation of comprehensive lists of sins and petitions of forgiveness.

The Jewish tradition is very clear about differentiating types of sins; petitions to relieve sins that are addressed to G-d only pertain to the individual’s relationship to G-d such as any vows made against G-d (as during forced conversions during the Inquisition). Transgressions committed against persons must be settled with those persons; G-d does not forgive sins committed against other people.

The lists of sins in the traditional prayer service address mistreatment of others especially in the use of language (e.g. falsehoods, slander, humiliations). Even if one has personally not committed any sins, redress for others in the community is prayed for.

Yom Kippur begins at sundown with the chanting of the “Kol Nidre” prayer which seeks annulment of vows against G-d, and closes with the “Ni’elah” service which signifies the “closing of the gates” for the inscriptions for the year ahead, followed by a long blast of the Shofar, a ram’s horn.

The theme of “T’Shuvah” translated as repentance, more precisely “return”, is central and interpreted as the recognition of free will and the imperative to struggle with and take personal responsibility for one’s behavior.[1] Redemption includes the tasks of: addressing the world’s oppressed, teaching compassion, giving charity for less fortunate others, being just and loving mercy.

This holy period prescribes processes that enjoin each person to chart a corrective course at the beginning of every Jewish New Year and thus provides the basic scaffold for the moral framework of Jewish civilization.

The challenges embodied in the “Days of Awe” are built on various strands of human strivings, codified into Jewish law and traditions, transmitted into and joining the civilizing thrusts of other beliefs and traditions…..towards the continuous repair of the world: “Tikun Olam”.


[1] Meditation, page 106….”.surely our deeds do not pass away unrecorded. Every word, every act inscribes itself in the Book of Life. Freely we choose and what we have chosen to become stands in judgment over what we may yet hope to be. In our choices we are not always free. But if only we make the effort to turn, every force of goodness, within and without, will help us, while we live, to escape that death of the heart which leads to sin.” Gates of Repentance: the New Union Prayerbook for the Days of Awe”. Central Conference of American Rabbis: New York, 1978, revised 1996.

Hilda D. Perlitsh, Ph.D., Clinical Associate Professor of Psychology, Boston University

Displacement of responsibility (Moral disengagement, part 5)

The fourth mechanism of moral disengagement described by Albert Bandura is displacement or diffusion of responsibility.

Man with crossed arms, fingers pointing at others ("don't blame me")
Photo by Achim Hering (Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. From Wikimedia Commons)

Displacement of responsibility refers to claims that, for example, you are not being immoral when committing an atrocity while “just following orders.” Such claims dominated the Nuremberg Trials at the end of World War II.

Under the Nuremberg Principles, which are the basis of current international law, “only following orders” has explicitly been identified as an unacceptable defense.  Nevertheless, it continues to appear in military contexts and probably led to the reducing of Lt. William Calley’s sentence for the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War.

More recently, in preparing the nation to accept his plan to invade Iraq, President George W. Bush declared: “Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination…. History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act.”

In other words, it is not our fault that we are going to war; they made us do it.

After the fall of Iraq, when informed about the rioting and looting going on, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his infamous remark, “Stuff happens,” another way of avoiding responsibility for the chaos.

It is easy to find online many quotes from U.S. leaders concerning the war in Iraq. Take a look at them and see how many examples you can find of displacement or avoidance of responsibility and the other mechanisms of moral disengagement we have been discussing.

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.

Moral disengagement – Introduction

Photo of 3 monkeys in "hear, speak, see no evil" poses
Hear, Speak, See No Evil. Toshogu Prefecture, Japan. (Unconditional permission granted by photographer, via WikiMedia Commons.)

Psychologist Albert Bandura has devoted his life to the study of human aggression and violence.  It is his theoretical constructs that we begin considering today.

Bandura recognized that shame and guilt are uncomfortable emotions and that people will utilize a variety of strategies to avoid feeling them.

For some people, feelings of shame and guilt resulting from bad behavior may lead to positive character development, mature intimacy, generativity, and integrity.

Other people use strategies of “moral disengagement” to help them avoid shame or guilt while continuing to behave badly.

According to Bandura, “mechanisms of moral disengagement” can serve to satisfy their users that they are behaving morally because they are conforming to the values of their role models, spiritual guides, or political leaders.

Unfortunately, many leaders, often with the help of the media, promote the development and use of moral disengagement in order to insure their followers’ compliance in acts of horrifying violence against others.  For example, they encourage viewing “the enemy” as someone evil, inferior, and deserving punishment or even elimination.

Bandura has identified several types of moral disengagement that allow ordinary people to tolerate and even contribute to behaviors like torture, rape, and murder–behaviors that violate the ethics of reciprocity, the teachings of love and brotherhood in all major religious texts, and the human rights laws endorsed by the United Nations.

These mechanisms of moral disengagement include:

  • “Moral” justification–which we prefer to call “spurious moral justification”
  • Euphemistic labeling
  • Advantageous comparison
  • Displacement of responsibility
  • Disregard or distortion of consequences
  • Dehumanizing or demonizing the other

In upcoming posts, we will explore each of these mechanisms in more detail, and give common examples of their use. We will also introduce the mechanisms of moral engagement that allow individuals to resist spurious calls to violence in the name of peace.

Be sure to check back to learn more.

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.