Moral disengagement

Moral disengagement is a term from social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. Thus, moral disengagement involves a process of cognitive re-construing or re-framing of destructive behavior as being morally acceptable without changing the behavior or the moral standards. In social cognitive theory of morality, self-regulatory mechanisms embedded in moral standards and self-sanctions translate moral reasoning into actions, and, as a result, moral agency is exerted. Thus, the moral self is situated in a broader, socio-cognitive self-theory consisting of self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulative mechanisms. Three major sub-functions are operating in this self-regulatory system in which moral agency is grounded. The first sub-function is self-monitoring of one's conduct, which is the initial step of taking control over it. 'Action gives rise to self-reactions through a judgmental function in which conduct is evaluated against internal standards and situational circumstances'. Thus, moral judgments evoke self-reactive influence. The self-reactive and judgmental mechanisms constitute the second and third sub-function. Moral disengagement is a term from social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. Thus, moral disengagement involves a process of cognitive re-construing or re-framing of destructive behavior as being morally acceptable without changing the behavior or the moral standards. In social cognitive theory of morality, self-regulatory mechanisms embedded in moral standards and self-sanctions translate moral reasoning into actions, and, as a result, moral agency is exerted. Thus, the moral self is situated in a broader, socio-cognitive self-theory consisting of self-organizing, proactive, self-reflective, and self-regulative mechanisms. Three major sub-functions are operating in this self-regulatory system in which moral agency is grounded. The first sub-function is self-monitoring of one's conduct, which is the initial step of taking control over it. 'Action gives rise to self-reactions through a judgmental function in which conduct is evaluated against internal standards and situational circumstances'. Thus, moral judgments evoke self-reactive influence. The self-reactive and judgmental mechanisms constitute the second and third sub-function. Generally, moral standards are adopted to serve as guides for good behavior and as deterrents for bad conduct. Once internalized control has developed, people regulate their actions by the standards they apply to themselves and this give them self-satisfaction and a sense of self-worth. Individuals refrain from behaving in ways that violate their moral standards in order to avoid self-condemnation. Therefore, self-sanctions play a significant role in keeping conduct in line with these internal moral standards and hence also in regulating inhumane conduct. However, moral standards only function as fixed internal regulators of conduct when self-regulatory mechanisms have been activated. Many different social and psychological processes prevent the activation of self-sanction. Selective activation of self-sanctions and internal moral control or disengagement allows for a wide range of behaviour, given the same moral standard. Moral disengagement functions in the perpetration of inhumanities through moral justification, euphemistic labelling, advantageous comparison, displacing or diffusing responsibility, disregarding or misrepresenting injurious consequences, and dehumanising the victim. Rather than operating independently, these cognitive mechanisms are interrelated within a sociostructural context to promote inhumane conduct in people's daily lives. One method of disengagement is portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable. Moral justification is the first of a series of mechanisms suggested by Bandura that can induce people to bypass self-sanction and violate personal standards. For example, torture, in order to obtain information necessary to protect the nation's citizens, may be seen as acceptable. This form of disengagement happens before the decision to engage in a behaviour, usually people only engage in reprehensible conduct after they have justified the actions on a moral ground. Through cognitive reconstrual, wrongful behaviours can be perceived as righteous. Religious principles, nationalistic imperatives and righteous ideologies have long been used as means to justify reprehensible and destructive conducts. One example is the holy terror justified by religious principles documented by Rapport and Alexander. Moral justifications can be highly effective in influencing public opinion, this is due to the difficulty in detecting deceptive moral claims. Literature review by Kathleen found that the difficulty arises from the following four sources. 1. People are generally susceptible to deception. 2. Political communication is usually in the form of media, which eliminates the nonverbal cues that can assist the detection of deception. 3. People become overly focused on the individual due to social judgement biases. 4. Politicians accusing each other of lying is not the norm of political culture, therefore it is not natural for the public to suspect moral claims. Kathleen also identified four variants of moral-claim justifications in politics. 1. Personal ethical standards. 2. Shared political values. 3. Not commonly shared values for example religion-specific principles. 4. A claim of collective benefits. Among these variants, it is found that justifications which appeal to personal ethical standards and collective social benefits are the most effective in shaping public opinion. It should be noted that people with high moral principles are not exempt from moral justification, they are less likely to conform to arbitrary social demands however when their principles are violated, they are also more likely to display aggressive behaviour towards violators. Using euphemistic language to describe reprehensible conduct is another way that individuals can morally disengage from their moral standards. Language shapes individual thought forms which constitute the basis for courses of action. Activities can take on different 'appearances' depending on what names are given or attached them. Euphemistic language is a means to make injurious and harmful behavior respectable and reduce responsibility for it from the person. With the help of intricate rephrasing, detrimental behaviour is made innocuous and acceptable, and people who are part of it are liberated from feeling sense of guilty. Adults are more likely to engage in aggressive conduct when the detrimental act is sanitized than when it is labelled as an aggression. There exists different varieties of euphemisms. One of them is dependent on sanitizing language. By disguising the deleterious with innocent wordings, the detrimental behaviour itself becomes more respectable. Soldiers 'waste' people rather than kill them. Bombing missions are executed in the name of 'servicing the target,' and for the sake of public utility. Terrorists name themselves as 'freedom fighters.' The attacks are depicted as 'clean, surgical strikes,' and the victims are eloquently listed as 'collateral damage.' Sanitizing euphemism is also commonly used in less abominable daily activities that people perform everyday. From the point of view of several government agencies, people are not laid off. Instead they are provided with a 'career alternative enhancement', making it look like they are offered a job promotion. The lecturer may teach business students to rephrase lies in competitive business transactions for the sake of closing the deal as 'strategic misrepresentation'. The nuclear power industry has its own technical set of terms of euphemisms for the detrimental effects caused by nuclear mishaps to the public. An explosion is described as an 'energetic dis-assembly,' and a reactor accident is labeled as a 'normal aberration'. Last but not least, plutonium contamination is tagged as 'infiltration'. People working in the television industry attempt to introduce some of the most brutal television shows of human cruelty to the public with the sanitized tags of 'action and adventure' programming. The acid rain which imposes destroying effects on lakes and forests has its own euphemistic label of 'atmospheric deposition of anthropogenically derived acidic substances'.