Doctrinal disputes matter chiefly for their perceived moral consequences

Evidence

It is interesting that he sanctified suicide bombing even though Islam morally and legally forbids suicide. The contradiction probably has more to do with the relative effectiveness of different pernicious means than with inherent theological nuance. Being a moral authority is not an easy job, especially when one must justify violent means that prove effective in advancing one’s cause. Moral compromises create logical paradoxes. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2242 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

The enormity of the twin towers pulverization, in which thousands of workers and hundreds of first responders and airline passengers perished, defy vindication by Islamic values and law. Husayn al-Musawi, a leader of Hezbollah, faced the same moral contradiction. When he was reminded that holding innocent people as hostages is forbidden by Islamic law, he justified it with a contextual, exonerative metaphor: “It is the same as with alcohol. … Alcohol is forbidden under Islam, but when it is a medicine you are allowed to take as much as you need for your recovery” (Kramer, 1990). … Democracies confront the same moral self-contradiction when they preach freedom, justice, and inalienable rights while supporting, for reasons of self-interest, dictatorial regimes that abuse their own people. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2160 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Moral authorities sanction effective violence even at the cost of theological contradiction — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2242; Christian-Muslim controversy necessarily centers on their fixed points of doctrinal disagreement; Medieval dialogue imagined philosophers and Christians as united in a common moral fight — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 233 (+4 more)

Related

• Moral authorities sanction effective violence even at the cost of theological contradiction (similarity 0.85)
• Moral justifications for extreme acts use contextual exceptions paralleling religious dispensations (similarity 0.83)
• Moral authorities bend religious norms to serve effective violent means (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Moral authorities sanction effective violence even at the cost of theological contradiction #exemplifies (0.82) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2242
• Belief in a cause’s morality turns destructive acts into pride #exemplifies (0.78)
• Christian-Muslim controversy necessarily centers on their fixed points of doctrinal disagreement #qualifies (0.75)
• Moral justifications for extreme acts use contextual exceptions paralleling religious dispensations #expands (0.75) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2160
• Whether harm counts as morally wrong depends on context and justification #exemplifies (0.74) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3863
• Enemy distinctions constitute rather than merely reflect the theological-political divide #expands (0.73) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 208
• Medieval dialogue imagined philosophers and Christians as united in a common moral fight #exemplifies (0.72) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 233