Which harmful acts count as moral matters is socially negotiable, enabling exclusion.

Evidence

Conventions encompass social rules of acceptable conduct established by consensus in a given group. Conventional standards vary across time, place, and cultural milieu. Morality encompasses behavior that can be physically and psychologically injurious, behavior that inflicts harm on others, degrades them, and violates their human rights. However, a variety of social factors influence which harmful activities are assigned to the moral domain and which are excluded (Bandura, 1991b). In moral disengagement, self-monitoring is the locus for reconstrual of harmful behavior, minimizing its wrongfulness and disputing its harmfulness. — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement, 214

Categorization

• XREF: Directly useful for showing why people can endorse Islamophobic policy without self-condemnation: the harmful act is socially framed as outside the moral domain or merely conventional, matching how political out-group harm gets recast as security or cultural defense.
• QUESTION: What exact social factors decide which harms get excluded from the moral domain? This chapter gestures at them generally; flagging for later sections on sanitizing language and diffusion of responsibility.
• DEEPTHINKING: The claim that the boundary of the moral domain itself is socially constructed — not just behavior judged within it — is the load-bearing insight explaining how societies selectively decriminalize harms against certain out-groups.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 214