Torture designers justified abuse through advantageous comparisons to alternative harms.

Evidence

Although they lacked experience in interrogating detainees, the CIA outsourced to them, with a multimillion-dollar contract, the task of designing and implementing the interrogation program at Guantánamo and overseas facilities. … Mitchell minimized the brutality of the practices by advantageous comparisons. “It’s a lot more humane, even if you are going to subject them to harsh techniques, to question them while they are still alive,” he argued, “than it is to kill them and their children and their neighbors with a drone” (Dilanian, 2014). — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2378 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Uplifting comparisons legitimize harmful acts by associating them with revered moral figures; Perpetrators sanitize abusive interrogation by comparing it to worse alternatives like drone strikes — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2378; The ticking-time-bomb scenario legitimized torture through utilitarian reasoning — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2371 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Perpetrators sanitize abusive interrogation by comparing it to worse alternatives like drone strikes #exemplifies (0.93) — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 2378