People disengage moral self-sanctions through euphemism, justification, and dehumanization

Evidence

Moral disengagement is the process through which we free ourselves from the negative consequences, primarily, but not exclusively, of a psychological nature (e.g., distress, shame, loss of reputation) that would likely follow should we acknowledge certain negative actions that we have committed (Bandura, 1999). Amid these strategies are euphemistic labeling (e.g., “collateral damage”), moral justification (“it is a battle against evil”), and dehumanization. The latter has received quite a lot of attention in psychological literature, and its function is well described by psychologist Albert Bandura. He argues that perceiving another person as human activates empathetic reactions that would make it difficult to mistreat him or her without risking personal distress, but that once the other is dehumanized, such self-sanctions for mistreatment can be disengaged (Bandura, 1990). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2096

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines moral disengagement as the process of freeing oneself from psychological costs of acknowledged wrongdoing.
• XREF: connects to: People accept cruelty to the poor but recoil at commodifying their own bodies — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 414; Believing in Western exploitation can itself legitimize totalitarian maltreatment of citizens — Jessica Whyte, The Morals of the Market: Human Rights…, 432; Institutional evil requires a social psychology of how settings override members’ moral scruples — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 4030 (+3 more)