Religious clerics justify forbidden violence through situational imperatives and utilitarian framing

Evidence

Clerics of any denomination face a moral paradox when the militant strategies they favor, either directly or indirectly, belie the sacred values they espouse. Kramer (1990) describes the great lengths to which Shiite clerics go to create moral justifications for violent acts that breach Islamic law, such as suicide bombings and taking innocent people as hostages. The clerics must persuade themselves of the morality of their actions not only to preserve their positive self-regard but also to uphold their integrity in the eyes of rival clerics and in the international arena. In reality, Islam permits neither suicide by any means nor the terrorizing of innocent people. The clerics justify such acts by invoking situational imperatives and utilitarian reasons. They frame the issue in terms of their foes’ overwhelming tyrannical power, which drives oppressed people to resort to unconventional methods of self-protection. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2236

Categorization

• DEFINE: Illustrates the ‘necessitarian justification’ mechanism of moral disengagement in a concrete case.
• DEEPTHINKING: The paradox — sacred authority figures must persuade themselves AND rivals of the morality of acts their own law forbids — shows disengagement as socially performative, not merely private rationalization.
• XREF: connects to: Centuries of Christian violence served protecting power and privilege — Andrew L. Whitehead, American Idolatry, 447; Theocratic leaders justify state violence by analogy to corporal discipline of children — Katherine Stewart, The Power Worshippers: Inside the…, 168