A cheater can lie, betray allies, and win lawsuits while feeling no ethical transgression

Evidence

Lance Armstrong granted Oprah Winfrey a lengthy televised interview that addressed his sophisticated doping operation (Armstrong & Winfrey, 2012). These interviews shed some light on how a phenomenal athlete can cheat in an elaborate scheme to win seven prestigious titles; elude antidop-ing officials and enforcers; proclaim his innocence in many mass media appearances; disparage his teammates as liars, knowing that they were telling the truth about the doping operation; win a lawsuit against O’Reilly, knowing that her allegations were true; betray his highly regarded cancer foundation; and still evidently feel good about himself. To begin with, Armstrong did not construe his doping behavior as ethically transgressive. “Did it feel wrong?” Oprah asked. “No,” Armstrong replied. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 238

Categorization

• XREF: Directly evidences the book’s central paradox — people doing great harm feel fine — which is the through-line of the whole reading project.
• SEED: Angle: the Oprah interview as a case study in the complete absence of self-censure — what a confessions genre expects that gets no payoff.