Challengers justify militancy by appealing to a higher communal morality

Evidence

Challengers refute such moral arguments by appealing to what they regard as a higher level of morality derived from communal concerns. They see their constituencies as comprising entire classes of people who are harmed either directly or indirectly by injurious institutional practices. Challengers argue that, when many people benefit from a system that has adverse effects on marginalized or devalued segments of society, harmful social practices receive widespread public support. As the challengers see it, they are acting under a moral imperative to stop the maltreatment of people who have no way of modifying injurious social policies because they are either outside the system that harms them or they lack the resources to effect changes from within by peaceable means. Their defenders regard militant action as the only recourse available to them to redress the injustice. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 361

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the competing moral frame challengers deploy against legal order: a ‘higher-level morality’ grounded in communal benefit.
• XREF: connects to: Anti-fans hold a shared belief system that deems their own values morally superior — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 393