Terrorists justify violence through utilitarian and personal grievance framing

Evidence

A variety of justifications are moral disengagers for involvement in terroristic activities. In sacred justifications, terrorists view themselves as doing God’s bidding, willing to kill others and martyr themselves for rewards in the afterlife. Secular justifications rely heavily on consequentialism. Secularly oriented terrorists aim to dislodge oppressive social practices and topple tyrannical regimes, thereby improving peoples’ lives. Terrorists who espouse utilitarian justifications believe that the harm their terroristic acts cause is minor compared with the widespread social benefits they will usher in for the aggrieved. With idiosyncratic justifications as a basis for terrorism, personal grievances are the moral disinhibitors for vengeful, costly actions. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2136 (#expands, via linked claim)

Exonerating comparison relies heavily on moral justification by utilitarian standards. Making violence morally acceptable from a utilitarian perspective is facilitated by two sets of judgments. First, nonviolent options are depicted as ineffective for achieving desired changes, thus removing them from consideration. Second, utilitarian analyses using advantageous comparisons affirm that one’s injurious actions will prevent more human suffering than they cause. The utilitarian cost-benefit calculus, however, can be quite slippery in specific applications. Estimates of future harm contain many uncertainties and ambiguities. Predictive judgment is, therefore, subject to many biases (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). As a result, calculations of long-term human costs and benefits are often suspect. Estimating the gravity of potential threats also is fraught with subjectivity. Moreover, violence is often used as a weapon against minor threats on the grounds that if left unchecked, they will escalate and spread to cause far more human suffering. The frequently invoked domino theory reflects this type of escalative projection error concerning a likely course of events. Estimate of the gravity of a situation justifies choice of options. But preference for violent options often biases estimates of gravity. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 394 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Denouncing ISIS without denouncing US violence legitimizes the war on terror; Terrorists morally justify violence by framing themselves as selfless freedom fighters — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2173; Terrorists must justify violence primarily to themselves, not just to win public support (+7 more)

Broader Connections

• Terrorists use sacred, utilitarian, and personal grievance justifications to disengage morally. #expands (0.95) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2136
• Utilitarian justifications for violence rest on biased estimates of future harm #complicates (0.74) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 394