Homeworks academic writing service


A reflection in translating life and morality positively in dealing with a bully

Moral justification[ edit ] One method of disengagement is portraying inhumane behavior as though it has a moral purpose in order to make it socially acceptable.

Moral justification is the first of a series of mechanisms suggested by Bandura that can induce people to bypass self-sanction and violate personal standards. This form of disengagement happens before the decision to engage in a behaviourusually people only engage in reprehensible conduct after they have justified the actions on a moral ground.

Through cognitive reconstrual, wrongful behaviours can be perceived as righteous. One example is the holy terror justified by religious principles documented by Rapport and Alexander. Literature review by Kathleen found that the difficulty arises from the following four sources.

A reflection in translating life and morality positively in dealing with a bully

People are generally susceptible to deception. Political communication is usually in the form of media, which eliminates the nonverbal cues that can assist the detection of deception. People become overly focused on the individual due to social judgement biases. Politicians accusing each other of lying is not the norm of political culture, therefore it is not natural for the public to suspect moral claims.

Not commonly shared values for example religion-specific principles. A claim of collective benefits. Language shapes individual thought forms which constitute the basis for courses of action. Activities can take on different "appearances" depending on what names are given or attached them. Euphemistic language is a means to make injurious and harmful behavior respectable and reduce responsibility for it from the person. Adults are more likely to engage in aggressive conduct when the detrimental act is sanitized than when it is labelled as an aggression.

One of them is dependent on sanitizing language. Soldiers "waste" people rather than kill them. Terrorists name themselves as "freedom fighters. From the point of view of several government agencies, people are not laid off.

Instead they are provided with a "career alternative enhancement", making it look like they are offered a job promotion.

A reflection in translating life and morality positively in dealing with a bully

The lecturer may teach business students to rephrase lies in competitive business transactions for the sake of closing the deal as "strategic misrepresentation". An explosion is described as an "energetic dis-assembly," and a reactor accident is labeled as a "normal aberration". Last but not least, plutonium contamination is tagged as "infiltration".

When a driver explaining to police how he managed to demolish a telephone pole, he said "The telephone pole was approaching.

I was attempting to swerve out of its way, when it struck my front end. Advantageous comparison[ edit ] In addition to moral justification, another mechanism that individuals can deploy to make harmful behavior seem morally acceptable is termed advantageous comparison.

  • Displacement of responsibility distorts facts;
  • People would willingly begin to recollect prior information regarding the potential benefits of the behavior but are less likely to recall its harmful effects the behavior would cause to others;
  • The lecturer may teach business students to rephrase lies in competitive business transactions for the sake of closing the deal as "strategic misrepresentation";
  • People acting collectively on a shared belief, not as an inane member of a group is what is performing the cognizing, aspiring, motivating and regulating functions for the society;
  • To maintain effective control under the evolving conditions of life, it requires mastery of knowledge and skills which are only attainable through continued investment of time, effort, and resources;
  • Self justification theory is of lower importance in groups than in individuals because most decisions in organizations are taken by groups in form of new policies and regulations.

This process exploits the contrast principle, which follows the assumption that the perception of human conduct is influenced by what it is compared against.

That is, individuals contrast their conduct with other examples of more immoral behavior and in doing this comparison their own behavior is trivialized. The more immoral the contrasting behavior is, the more likely it is that one's destructive behavior will seem less bad. Two sets of judgements facilitate making destructive behavior morally acceptable. Firstly, non-violent alternatives are judged to be ineffective to achieve desired changes and consequently eliminated as options.

According to his belief, the calculation process of estimating the significance of potential threats is subjective. People behave in ways they would normally oppose if a legitimate authority accepts responsibility for the consequences of that behavior. Displacement of responsibility distorts facts. Under these conditions people view their actions as dictates of authorities rather than their own actions. They play the role of an agent of moral disengagement and start to behave in ways they ordinarily disavow if an appropriate authority accepts responsibility for their behavior.

Personal liability for conduct drives people to view their actions as coming from authoritative figures under displaced responsibility. Not being the true agents of their actions, they are saved from self-condemnation. Displacement of responsibility revealed gruesome inhumanities through self-exemption in mass executions sanctioned socially. Self-exonerating deference to gruesome orders is evident in military atrocities, such as the My Lai massacre.

If responsibility for their behavior is cast off, they would be unreliable in performance of their duties. A strong sense of responsibility is required to be a good functionary. Responsibility is characterized in two levels: Best a reflection in translating life and morality positively in dealing with a bully honor their obligations towards their authorities and do not feel personally responsible for the effects caused by their actions.

It occurs in a group of people, where with the increasing number of people, the level of diffusion increases. In this phenomenon, a person has lower inclination towards responsibility as they feel that others are also equally responsible in the group. Assumptions are made on the basis that other people are responsible for taking action. Responsibility is diffused by division of labor. This shifts attention to the details of their specific job. Decision making in groups is a practice that makes otherwise polite people to behave inhumanely.

Collective action provides anonymitywhich allows weakening of moral control. Any harmful activity carried out in the group can be associated to others actions. People in groups act inhumanely when they personally held accountable for their actions. Though initial decisions with regard to new framework are made by people on their own, most imperative decisions are taken by the group in a managerial context. Thus, generally the offered description for persistence in error may be irrelevant or at least have lower relevance to situations of escalation.

Self justification theory is of lower importance in groups than in individuals because most decisions in organizations are taken by groups in form of new policies and regulations. When decisions fail, people subjectively disfigure consequences to make themselves appear more agreeable.

People try to justify actions taken previously in the past which leads them to take a failing course of action. Though these actions taken previously lead to escalated commitment, a decision to stay in the same course of action could be damaged by the extent to which a person shares the responsibility for initiating that failing course of action. The first is where the responsibility or the blame is transferred to the third party for improper action.

In this case, a person feels less responsible for the failure caused by them along with the inclination to the failing project. The blame of a poor decision is shared within the group, allocating less responsibility to each member for the decision than it would have been if the decision was made by one person alone. Social interaction may curtail the propensity to escalate commitment to a defeated course of action by diffusing responsibility for the original decision and discouraging the arousal of intentions to justify previous behavior.

When someone decides to pursue an activity harmful to others for personal advantage, or as a result of impact by social stimulus, they generally either minimize the harm they have caused or attempt to avoid facing it.

Moral disengagement

People would willingly begin to recollect prior information regarding the potential benefits of the behavior but are less likely to recall its harmful effects the behavior would cause to others. When the harm caused to the victim becomes less evident and personalized, people are more likely to execute inhumanities requires.

Therefore, there is little reason for self-censure or moral codes to be triggered as long as the harm is overlooked, minimized or distorted. It is relatively easy to hurt others when the detrimental results of one's conduct are ignored, and when causal effects are not visible because they are remote from one's behaviour on the physical and mental level.

Even there exists a high level personal responsibility in people, they will still execute detrimental behaviours when the harm they inflict on their victims are not realized.

Navigation menu

For instance, "use of this mechanism in sport is seen when players avoid finding out the extent of injuries sustained by opponents or deny the seriousness of the injuries of which they are aware". For example, people are less likely to obey to execute detrimental behaviours as the victim's pain became more evident and personalized. It is commonly seen that nowadays most of the organisations have a clear set of hierarchical chains where people in the upper level come up with plans pass them down to their subordinates known as executors, who then carry them out.

It appears that the further the individuals are away from the end results, the feeble is the binding power of the foreseeable destructive effects.

Disengagement of personal control normally exists among people who are situated between the top and the bottom in a hierarchical system because they can get away with the responsibility of formulating the plans, and they are not involved in executing the decisions. As a transmitter, they attempt to model dutiful behavior and further legitimize their superiors.

  • One of them is dependent on sanitizing language;
  • In this phenomenon, a person has lower inclination towards responsibility as they feel that others are also equally responsible in the group;
  • Personal liability for conduct drives people to view their actions as coming from authoritative figures under displaced responsibility;
  • Further, their study also suggested that trait cynicism is facilitator of moral disengagement.

Therefore, intermediaries are much more prone to implement destructive commands than are those who are in charge of coming up with new plans and who are responsible for carrying them out and facing the results. The victim is no longer viewed as a person with feelings, hopes and concerns, but objectified as a lesser sub-human.

Whereas delegitimization is the process of categorizing others into negative social groups, which exclude them from acceptable humanness. Such attributes include morality, rationalitycivility and refinement. People identify themselves with their social group ingroup and dissociate themselves from social groups to which they believe they don't identify with outgroup. Therefore, by likening the outgroup to animals, they are perceived as less rational and sophisticated, which ultimately creates a psychological barrier that allows for the justification of negative behavior towards the 'non-human' outgroup.

For example, the Nazi's regularly compared the Jews to 'rats', and the Hutu's interchangeably used the term Tutsis and 'cockroach' in the majority of their propaganda. Many animals such as snakes, leeches and rats tend to strike an unconscious automatic reaction of disgust, and therefore, by likening an outgroup to these animals the negative and 'disgusting' attributes of these animals are metaphorically projected onto the outgroup.

This process is referred to as a reflection in translating life and morality positively in dealing with a bully dehumanization. It is the belief that ones ingroup is more 'human' than the outgroup in terms of uniquely human attributes and secondary emotions.

However, ingroup bias tends to attribute these secondary emotions towards themselves, but deny or lessen the extent of these emotions in the outgroup, thus leading to the out group being portrayed as 'lesser-humans'. Sweitzer [47] propose that some individuals are more inclined to morally disengage than others. Based on their study, they found that certain individual differences predict and influence moral disengagement.

Sweitzer [47] found that being more acutely aware of the needs and feelings of others prevents moral disengagement activities. Individuals with high empathy are less likely to morally disengage from acts that would harm others. Further, their study also suggested that trait cynicism is facilitator of moral disengagement.

The same applies to blaming and dehumanising victims. In addition, they found that chance locus of control orientation is another individual characteristic that is positively related to moral disengagement.

That is, people who believe life experiences and outcomes are due to external forces, are more likely to morally disengage. Their findings also shows that the higher self-importance of moral identity the less prone individuals are to moral disengagement. People do not operate as autonomous moral agents unaffected by the social realities in which they are embedded, and hence moral agency is socially situated.

Moral agency is exercised in "particularized ways" depending on the conditions under which people's everyday life transactions are taking place.

  • People become overly focused on the individual due to social judgement biases;
  • Literature review by Kathleen found that the difficulty arises from the following four sources;
  • Moral justification is the first of a series of mechanisms suggested by Bandura that can induce people to bypass self-sanction and violate personal standards;
  • Collective action provides anonymity , which allows weakening of moral control.

Speaking of personal control, in many circumstances, people usually cannot directly control social conditions or institutional practices that effect their daily lives.