We are independent & ad-supported. We may earn a commission for purchases made through our links.

Advertiser Disclosure

Our website is an independent, advertising-supported platform. We provide our content free of charge to our readers, and to keep it that way, we rely on revenue generated through advertisements and affiliate partnerships. This means that when you click on certain links on our site and make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn more.

How We Make Money

We sustain our operations through affiliate commissions and advertising. If you click on an affiliate link and make a purchase, we may receive a commission from the merchant at no additional cost to you. We also display advertisements on our website, which help generate revenue to support our work and keep our content free for readers. Our editorial team operates independently from our advertising and affiliate partnerships to ensure that our content remains unbiased and focused on providing you with the best information and recommendations based on thorough research and honest evaluations. To remain transparent, we’ve provided a list of our current affiliate partners here.

What Is Moral Disengagement?

Esther Ejim
By
Updated Mar 03, 2024
Our promise to you
The Health Board is dedicated to creating trustworthy, high-quality content that always prioritizes transparency, integrity, and inclusivity above all else. Our ensure that our content creation and review process includes rigorous fact-checking, evidence-based, and continual updates to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Our Promise to you

Founded in 2002, our company has been a trusted resource for readers seeking informative and engaging content. Our dedication to quality remains unwavering—and will never change. We follow a strict editorial policy, ensuring that our content is authored by highly qualified professionals and edited by subject matter experts. This guarantees that everything we publish is objective, accurate, and trustworthy.

Over the years, we've refined our approach to cover a wide range of topics, providing readers with reliable and practical advice to enhance their knowledge and skills. That's why millions of readers turn to us each year. Join us in celebrating the joy of learning, guided by standards you can trust.

Editorial Standards

At The Health Board, we are committed to creating content that you can trust. Our editorial process is designed to ensure that every piece of content we publish is accurate, reliable, and informative.

Our team of experienced writers and editors follows a strict set of guidelines to ensure the highest quality content. We conduct thorough research, fact-check all information, and rely on credible sources to back up our claims. Our content is reviewed by subject matter experts to ensure accuracy and clarity.

We believe in transparency and maintain editorial independence from our advertisers. Our team does not receive direct compensation from advertisers, allowing us to create unbiased content that prioritizes your interests.

Moral disengagement theory was developed by Albert Bandura, a developmental and social psychologist. This theory seeks to analyze the means through which individuals rationalize their unethical or unjust actions. Moral disengagement can be achieved through various mechanisms, such as moral justification, euphemistic labeling, advantageous comparison or attribution of blame.

One of the mechanisms for moral disengagement is moral justification. Under this mechanism, people who engage in immoral or injurious conduct seek to justify their actions through morality. To such people, any such act is considered a service to humanity or for the greater good of the community.

A morally reprehensible or inherently unjust act might be made more palatable through the moral disengagement mechanism of euphemistic labeling. Here, the perpetrators use euphemistic terms — terms that are less negative or might be viewed as positive — to make their actions seem less harmful. This sort of labeling also serves to limit or reduce their responsibility for their actions.

The moral engagement mechanism of advantageous comparison proposes that people who engage in reprehensible acts make it seem less objectionable by comparing it to something perceived as being worse. An example is justifying an attack on an unarmed group by listing their potential threats to the larger society. Such unprovoked violence against small groups is often justified by the theory of advantageous comparison.

Displacement of responsibility states that people might try to shift the blame for their unconscionable acts on legal authorities. For instance, soldiers might justify the execution of infants, pregnant women or nursing mothers as part of the command that they were given during a war. Here, the authority figure or organization might accept the responsibility for the actions of the actors.

Diffusion of responsibility is another moral disengagement mechanism that states that people might try to limit their responsibility for an action by diluting it. For example, when a group of people make a decision, any effect from that decision will not be as personal as it would have been if one person made the decision. Another means of diffusing responsibility is through the division of labor.

People who act immorally might try to mitigate the effects through the mechanism of disregard or distortion of consequences. This mechanism proposes that the perpetrators minimize or distort the harmful effect of their actions. When the consequences of their actions are less visible, it will be easier for them to justify such acts.

By dehumanizing their victims, perpetrators of inhumane acts might see their actions as less heinous. This theory is based on the way that the perpetrators view the people whom they are treating badly. By divesting the victims of any human qualities, the perpetrators make their actions seem more acceptable.

Attribution of blame is the tendency to blame circumstances or adversaries for actions instead of taking responsibility. Such people tend to see themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. They justify their actions by rationalizing that they have been pushed to do certain immoral or unjust things through provocation or coercion.

The Health Board is dedicated to providing accurate and trustworthy information. We carefully select reputable sources and employ a rigorous fact-checking process to maintain the highest standards. To learn more about our commitment to accuracy, read our editorial process.
Esther Ejim
By Esther Ejim , Former Writer
Esther Ejim, a visionary leader and humanitarian, uses her writing to promote positive change. As the founder and executive director of a charitable organization, she actively encourages the well-being of vulnerable populations through her compelling storytelling. Esther's writing draws from her diverse leadership roles, business experiences, and educational background, helping her to create impactful content.

Discussion Comments

By pollick — On Feb 13, 2014

@AnswerMan, I respectfully have to disagree with your assessment of the war in Vietnam. My cousin did two tours there in '68 and '69, and he came back convinced we were doing the right thing. It wasn't as clear cut as saving Europe from Hitler, but it was still morally justifiable. I think the better example of moral disengagement would be Pol Pot's decimation of the Cambodians during the late 70s. His Khmer Rouge thugs murdered and tortured millions of their own countrymen, all in the name of building a new Cambodia under his control.

By AnswerMan — On Feb 12, 2014

I would think using the term "ethnic cleansing" instead of genocide would fit into this category. If an undesirable group is systematically purged in order to protect the "good" citizenry, then it must be morally justifiable. By calling the extermination of millions of Jews a "final solution", the Nazis could sell the idea to the rest of the country.

I would say virtually every major country in the world has employed moral disengagement from time to time. When the United States government sent troops into Vietnam, it was to save the entire region from Communism. Saving countries from an oppressive form of government sounds morally justifiable, but admitting that we sent soldiers to die for oil, tin and rubber rights would not.

Esther Ejim

Esther Ejim

Former Writer

Esther Ejim, a visionary leader and humanitarian, uses her writing to promote positive change. As the founder and...
Learn more
The Health Board, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.

The Health Board, in your inbox

Our latest articles, guides, and more, delivered daily.