Minimizing victims’ emotional depth is a more radical moral disengagement strategy than empathy failure.

Evidence

In our view, however, the minimization mechanism is an even more radical step than nonempathic reactions. Instead of not feeling a victim’s pain, minimizing reflects a denial of emotional sensitivity to the victim. This minimization may be morally disengaging in two ways. It implicitly suggests that the actions were not as horrible as they may appear and that the victims do not have the capacity for suffering at a deep level, possibly because they are incapable of emotionality. The latter may be akin to a mechanistic dehumanization (Haslam, 2006). In its former meaning, minimization is ultimately an ingroup-centered moral disengagement strategy, whereas in the latter meaning it is outgroup centered; it helps remove victims from the sphere of humanity and thus from the scope of justice. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral
, 127

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Clarifies two-layer structure of minimization as a moral disengagement mechanism.
  • DEEPTHINKING: The claim that denying an outgroup’s capacity for deep emotionality is outcome- versus ingroup-centered is subtle and dense.
  • ADDENDUM: Relevant to the sacrifice essay: minimization helps remove victims ‘from the scope of justice,’ a mechanism for ritual killing of slaves/low-caste victims recounted there.
  • XREF: connects to: Group glorification increases emotional minimization of outgroup victims’ suffering. — Bernhard Leidner et al., Ingroup Glorification, Moral
, 50; Moral disengagement downplays harm by relabeling it a lesser rule breach — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm
, 1429; Devaluing victims as weak targets suppresses guilt in wrongdoers. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm
, 1411

Broader Connections