Beliefs about human nature shape moral responsibility and conduct
Evidence
Conceptions of human nature are not just a philosophical issue. When acted on, they are socially and morally consequential. In the moral domain, they can influence whether people believe they have some measure of control over what they do, the types of causal attributions they make, and their sense of moral responsibility for their conduct. In ancient theology, human nature was ordained by original divine design. Having been divinely granted the power of free will, individuals were free to choose how to behave in the likeness of absolute agency. Free will is an enigmatic, autonomous force that is self-negating in function. If individuals have the power of free choice, why do they choose the wrong course while under evil influences? An autonomous free will that succumbs to pernicious influences is a contradiction in terms. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 151
Categorization
- XREF: The free-will contradiction argument could feed the vault’s claim-building on how people rationalize harm — connecting to Cooper’s social-conservatism and authoritarianism arguments. — connects to: Even the worst situations remain fundamentally human and thus our responsibility — Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness: An Essay on…, 1288; Postwar ruin and atrocity discredited belief in fixed human nature — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 40; Belief in personal influence shapes felt moral responsibility
- corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 151