Disputing evidence of harm blocks self-censure, driving credibility battles

Evidence

Other ways of disengaging moral control operate by minimizing, disregarding, or even disputing the harmful effects of one’s actions. When people pursue activities that harm others, they avoid facing the harm they cause or minimize it. They are especially prone to minimize the harm they cause when they act alone and thus cannot easily evade responsibility (Mynatt & Herman, 1975). If minimization does not work, the evidence of harm can be discredited. As long as the harmful results of one’s conduct are ignored, minimized, or disputed, there is little or no reason for self-censure to be activated. Vigorous battles are therefore fought over the credibility of evidence of detrimental effects. Witness the heated dispute over the existence of global warming and whether it is caused by human activity. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 441

Categorization

• XREF: Explains why policy discourse becomes a fight over evidence credibility — connects to vault claims about authoritarian information regimes and manufactured doubt.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 441