military – Page 4 – Engaging Peace

Advantageous comparison (Moral disengagement, part 4)

Posted on October 4, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Advantageous comparison is another form of moral disengagement described by psychologist Albert Bandura. This mechanism is a way of trying to make one behavior look good by comparing it with a more frightful alternative.

For example, during the Vietnam War, massive destruction of the Vietnamese countryside by means of Agent Orange was portrayed as being a lot better for the Vietnamese people than being enslaved by the Communists.

One of the most familiar forms of advantageous comparison used to justify war and torture is “sacrificing a few to save thousands.” Undoubtedly, many people still believe that the dropping of atomic bombs on citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved thousands of American lives—an assumption with no real support.

Advantageous comparison became integral to “24,” a popular American television show. The program routinely justified the use of torture as essential to avoiding the greater disasters that could (ostensibly) hurt the innocent if torture had not been used.

The TV series was particularly popular among conservatives, many of whom apparently accepted the program’s message that not only is torture necessary to safeguard “national security” but also that it works.

This belief in the justifiability of a practice banned in international law flies in the face of warnings by experts on torture, including senior military and FBI officials. These and other experts criticized “24” for misrepresenting the effectiveness of torture and contributing to the misbelief that torture is justifiable.

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 engagement, part 2

Posted on September 6, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

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

Remembering Nagasaki, 1945

Posted on August 9, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

World War I was not the war to end all wars; neither did the dropping of a second U.S. atom bomb at Nagasaki, Japan bring lasting peace to the world.

origami peace cranes — Origami peace cranes

Since August 9, 1945, and the end of World War II, the U. S. has committed troops to more than 100 armed conflicts around the world—in widely dispersed areas such as China, Korea, Palestine, Lebanon, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, the Congo (Zaire), El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Honduras, Chad, the Persian Gulf, Panama, Colombia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Many of these armed interventions provoked controversy and protest among American citizens; others barely reached public awareness. The goals were always lofty; the results frequently horrendous; the true motives often highly suspect.

Although the U.S. has used armed force with increasing frequency to achieve a wide range of goals across the globe since World War II, the actual number of armed conflicts occurring each year has declined rather steadily in recent decades—from around 164 in 1982 to 40 in 2000 and only 28 in 2008.

The consistent decline in armed conflicts is one basis for optimism concerning the possibility of world peace. Despite the involvement of the United States in ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is good evidence that increasing numbers of people around the world can see alternatives to violence as a means of resolving conflicts.

Public support for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is declining even as funding continues. What will it take to get the country’s leadership to listen to the voice of the people who oppose these wars?

Future blogs will discuss the kinds of thinking people bring to their judgments concerning the legitimacy—and illegitimacy–of a government’s use of armed aggression and alternatives to that aggression.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology