moral disengagement?

poozers

is this what you would say about someone who disregards the concequences for their actions?
no, im not a psychologist, nor have i studied it. but it does interest me a lot!

is it like someone who is aware of what theyre doing, knows its wrong, but does it anyway to benefit themselves?
and then, when confronted, would retell and twist the story to others to make out that they were the innocent "victim" in it all. I'm not going as far as someone murdering or torturing someone, i just mean from general day to day behaviour, like telling lies, backstabbing, etc etc, even though they know they will get caught out, or they know they are hurting someone but still just do not give a plop? and then worms their way out of the situation with charm?

very specific i know, but is the right term here "moral disengagement", or is it something else, or a number of things??
thanks in advance !

Nymeria

Hi Poozers,

I could be wrong but could you be referring to Cognitive Dissonance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

JuliusCaesar

poozers wrote: »

is it like someone who is aware of what theyre doing, knows its wrong, but does it anyway to benefit themselves?

Sounds like self-interest.

poozers wrote: »

and then, when confronted, would retell and twist the story to others to make out that they were the innocent "victim" in it all.

Sounds like rationalisation.


We are, in general, EXCELLENT at coming up with excuses "reasons" for doing exactly what we want to do. :rolleyes:

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Sounds like self-interest.

Self-interest is a complicated thing. It makes people behave good as well as bad. Short-term bad behaviour may pay-off in the short-term. In the long term, not so straightforward.

Sounds like rationalisation.

And who are you?.....Ayn Rand?

We are, in general, EXCELLENT at coming up with excuses "reasons" for doing exactly what we want to do. :rolleyes:

Post Hoc justifications. Children from about the age of two, become wonderful liars. You ask them why they did something you specifically asked them not to do...And they will have a wonderful fairy story. .....In these instances, I don't think anger makes much headway. Instead I would chose to say "that's such a wonderful story...I would have never imagined.....And of course you'd never make something up like that, because you wouldn't want to lie to me or hurt me, would you?........would you?"...And then an insincere smile, a little cat face squint...... and a few minutes silence......And then they break down and confess. They always breakdown....The burden of their guilt is too much.

And you can actually do the same thing with an adult - who just hasn't grown up. But you're breaking social and culturally accepted norms by doing so and could end up in big trouble. It's culturally acceptable to bullshit, it's not acceptable to explicitly show someone up as a bullshitter.

Humria

I wrote an essay on this a couple of years ago but it's all gone a bit fuzzy so forgive an inaccuracies. As far as I remember, moral disengagement tends to come into play in more extreme situations (e.g. war) where basic moral principles are over-ridden by situational factors.

Take for example supports of terrorist organisations. They believe that the aims of the organisation are more important than the consequences of their actions (i.e. the loss of human life). There are a number of processes that make them able to maintain this viewpoint and avoid feeling the organisation they support is responsible for their actions. This would of course also apply to members of those organisations but at the time I learnt about it, the theory was being applied to the supporters to try understand why they continued to follow the cause.

Valmont

poozers, I think the way you have framed the question implies that the individual in question has a precise moral code against which they can judge their various actions. I think in this secular age such moral codes are in short supply (not that I am defending any particular one) so I would guess people don't really know precisely when they are doing wrong or not -- it's far too ambiguous and I reject any idea that something as complex as a moral system can be inbuilt in humans.

I think you could perhaps read up on moral relativism to explore this issue further.

krd wrote: »

And who are you?.....Ayn Rand?

What has rationalisation in the sense JuliusCaesar meant got to do with Ayn Rand?

krd

Valmont wrote: »

poozers, I think the way you have framed the question implies that the individual in question has a precise moral code against which they can judge their various actions.

I think in this secular age such moral codes are in short supply (not that I am defending any particular one) so I would guess people don't really know precisely when they are doing wrong or not --

There is a hole in your argument against the secular age. Simply, clerical sexual abuse, and the generalised cruelty of Catholic Ireland of the past. The religious were simultaneously deeply religious and deeply immoral.

it's far too ambiguous and I reject any idea that something as complex as a moral system can be inbuilt in humans.

Moral systems may not be that complex. The golden rule - which repeats itself in nearly every religion, is very simple.

I think you could perhaps read up on moral relativism to explore this issue further.

Moral relativism is such an annoying cop-out.

What has rationalisation in the sense JuliusCaesar meant got to do with Ayn Rand?

You can rationalise anything. Everything can have a reason. There isn't necessarily a logical coherency in the way people rationalise - so people behave seemingly irrationally.

There's an interesting psychological experiment - I can't remember the details. The subjects are asked for their rationalisations, they give detailed rationalisations, that they believe. Though I can't remember anything else about the experiment - it's rigged in such a way, that the subject doesn't really have that much control, and their rationalisations are nonsense. It's some kind of reflex that smooths out cognitive dissonance.

JuliusCaesar

krd wrote: »

Self-interest is a complicated thing. It makes people behave good as well as bad. Short-term bad behaviour may pay-off in the short-term. In the long term, not so straightforward.

Ok, call it a self-serving bias if you like. Of course self-interest can be good or bad in its eventual effects, but most people are mostly driven by short term gain (yes, of course this is a simplification, but it is also in general true.

krd wrote: »

And who are you?.....Ayn Rand?

:rolleyes: I was talking about rationalisation in terms of a compensatory strategy, or as psychoanalysts might say: defense mechanism.



I meant exactly what I said, and nothing beyond that. I was just giving a short and (I thought) fairly straightforward answer to the OP.

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Ok, call it a self-serving bias if you like. Of course self-interest can be good or bad in its eventual effects, but most people are mostly driven by short term gain (yes, of course this is a simplification, but it is also in general true.

Hmmmm. I don't really like that idea. And it's an idea that took hold - the idea of the person as a rational actor (that even if they are unconscious of the root of their actions - all their actions are ultimately selfish). Have you seen Adam Curtis' documentaries?

Impulsive responses can be as altruistic as selfish. People do not really know what they want. Most of the time, they don't even know what they're doing, or why they're doing it.

And ultimately something more terrifying. That there is nothing that guides you in your nature, and you are free.*


*I have an idea - though for the minute I can't prove this. That human rationality may be governed by chaos theory. And the idea of a central reductive logic is completely wrong. In a few months I may come back with a mathematical equation. That dooms humanity, to the tyranny of absolute freedom, and absolute responsibility.

:rolleyes: I was talking about rationalisation in terms of a compensatory strategy, or as psychoanalysts might say: defense mechanism.

There's a lot to that. It happens a lot with fraud. The victim creates explanatory narratives - which help the fraudster. It's funny cognitive dissonance is called "cognitive" dissonance - when it's an uncomfortable unbalancing feeling, and there isn't an awareness of the explicit reason for the discomfort. The cause of the anxiety is not known. People either create a narrative to make the anxiety vanish - agree to make a purchase - or they stop and think.

I meant exactly what I said, and nothing beyond that. I was just giving a short and (I thought) fairly straightforward answer to the OP.

Yes......You would say that, wouldn't you.

Valmont

krd wrote: »

There is a hole in your argument against the secular age. Simply, clerical sexual abuse, and the generalised cruelty of Catholic Ireland of the past. The religious were simultaneously deeply religious and deeply immoral.

Clerical sexual abuse has nothing at all to do with my argument -- which is that with the decline of the influence of formal religion there has been a corresponding decline in the number of people trying to adhere to a complex moral code. Morality is now taken for granted as self-evident: as they say in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum: 'just don't be a dick'.

krd wrote: »

You can rationalise anything. Everything can have a reason. There isn't necessarily a logical coherency in the way people rationalise - so people behave seemingly irrationally.

What has this got to do with Ayn Rand? I don't really understand what you're getting at?

krd

Valmont wrote: »

Clerical sexual abuse has nothing at all to do with my argument -- which is that with the decline of the influence of formal religion there has been a corresponding decline in the number of people trying to adhere to a complex moral code.

But that idea only holds if you believe that under a system of religious diktats, adherents did follow moral codes. And that they were not only superficial moral. In reality. When you give people a "religious" framework - you offer them a cloak. Which allows them to superficially display morality - and avoid group punishment, at the same time, they can be deeply nihilistic in their conduct, and keep it hidden.

The really shocking thing about the clerical abuse - and what really damaged the church in Ireland - was the realisation of the depth of nihilism within the Church.

True nihilism exists, and not necessarily only within psychopaths. Pyschopaths may actually have belief systems. Nihilists don't. Everything is a joke.

Nihilism is far more common than psychopathy.

Morality is now taken for granted as self-evident: as they say in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum: 'just don't be a dick'.

Maybe that's an over reduction of the golden rule.

What has this got to do with Ayn Rand? I don't really understand what you're getting at?

I'm not getting into Ayn Rand here.

JuliusCaesar

krd wrote: »

I'm not getting into Ayn Rand here.

You are the one who brought her up.

Valmont

krd wrote: »

Maybe that's an over reduction of the golden rule.

What's the golden rule?

JuliusCaesar

Valmont wrote: »

What's the golden rule?

Do onto others as you would have done onto you.

krd

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

You are the one who brought her up.

Yes....But......You're the one who made me bring her up.