Moral disengagement and the impact of power

Even with the establishment of norms and laws to maintain morality and ethical behaviour, violence and unethical behaviour have always been part of society. Throughout history, harmful acts, especially when done by those who control the narrative, have rarely been presented as immoral. Instead, they are reframed in ways that make them appear necessary, justified, or even beneficial. There are many examples of this, both old and new. The killing of indigenous populations during colonisation was often described as “civilising” territories. War on weaker or defenceless countries for the purpose of strategic or economic interests is presented as a necessary operation, justified in the name of security or national defence. And, the consequent civilian deaths are labelled as “collateral damage.” Violence or harassment against women and young girls has been and continues to be dismissed as “accidental dalliance” or “minor deviance”, while the behaviour of the women themselves is always questioned, shifting the blame from perpetrators to the victims.

Some of the latest examples of this can be seen in how Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems use people’s data without their consent for training purposes while presenting it as technological progress, and in how companies displace millions of workers with AI, and frame it as development. In many such situations, the perception of the act shifts, depending on who is involved, how it is described, and who holds power.

The concept of moral disengagement

Many theories attempt to explain harmful behaviour, violence and crime by focusing on individual deviance and social structures. One such concept introduced by the American psychologist Albert Bandura was moral disengagement. The concept refers to the psychological processes through which individuals rationalise or justify harmful behaviour while continuing to see themselves as moral people.

Developed in the 1990s, the concept explains how people can commit harmful acts without experiencing strong guilt or moral conflict. This can happen in several ways, by minimising one’s responsibility, ignoring the consequences of actions, blaming victims, or convincing oneself that the act serves a greater good.

However, moral disengagement does not operate only at the level of individuals. Within power-elite networks, these practices can function collectively. Shared vocabularies and institutional language are used to diffuse responsibility, limit scrutiny, and help sustain authority.

Mechanisms of moral disengagement

According to Bandura, there are several mechanisms through which individuals disengage from moral responsibility. One of these is moral justification, where harmful actions are framed as having a moral purpose, such as protecting national security or defending citizens. Another is advantageous comparison, where an action is made to appear less harmful by comparing it to something worse, allowing it to be presented as the “lesser evil.” Displacement of responsibility occurs when individuals or institutions believe that they are not personally accountable for the action, as they are simply following orders, a dynamic often discussed in relation to violence by soldiers.

Similar to this, is the idea of diffusion of responsibility, where accountability becomes spread across actors, such that it becomes difficult to pinpoint who is responsible for the deed. Distortion of consequences involves minimising or ignoring the harm caused by an action, especially when the consequences appear distant or abstract. Finally, dehumanisation and attribution of blame occur when victims are portrayed as less human, dangerous, or responsible for their own suffering, reducing empathy for them, making it easier to justify the immoral action committed against them. Together, these mechanisms allow individuals/institutions to maintain a positive moral self-image even while participating in harmful actions or decisions. Moral disengagement, therefore, does not mean that people lack morality; rather, it shows how moral reasoning can be cognitively reorganised to make harmful conduct appear acceptable.

Euphemistic labelling and Media Framing Theory

One other key mechanism that enables moral disengagement through language is euphemistic labelling. Here, harmful actions are described using sanitised or technical language that makes them appear less severe. By replacing morally charged words with neutral terms, the emotional weight of an action is reduced, making it easier to justify. For instance, phrases such as “collateral damage” instead of civilian deaths or “enhanced interrogation” instead of torture transform violence into what appears to be a technical or bureaucratic procedure.

Language has the potential to become even more powerful when it is amplified through the media. Media institutions play a crucial role in shaping public perception, as they can influence how events are interpreted by choosing particular words, narratives, and frames. As discussed in the Media Framing Theory developed by sociologist Erving Goffman, the way an issue is presented can shape how audiences understand its causes, consequences, and moral implications. In practice, media framing can sometimes support the interests of political elites and powerful institutions by softening or obscuring the reality of their harmful actions.

In discussions surrounding the cases of child rape and trafficking by influential people like Jeffrey Epstein and other political leaders, many news reports used terms such as “underage girls” or “young women”. Such phrasing softens the idea of abuse and violence by framing it as sexual misconduct rather than child rape. Phrases like “sex with a minor” also imply mutual participation, obscuring the coercion and power imbalance involved.

Similarly, in this case, bureaucratic language was used that often referred to terms like a “network,” “client list,” or “recruitment,” which made the operation sound like a corporate enterprise rather than an organised system of sexual exploitation.

Euphemistic language is also common in military contexts. In discussions of military operations in places such as Gaza, terms like “airstrikes,” “collateral damage,” or “security operations” can replace more direct descriptions such as bombing residential areas or killing civilians. Technical and euphemistic language reframes violence as strategic or procedural rather than highlighting human suffering, with the neutral nature of the terminologies, often reducing the emotional and ethical impact of a situation.

Moral disengagement and power

Moral disengagement becomes particularly significant in systems of power. Large institutions, including states, militaries, corporations, and bureaucracies, often operate through complex hierarchies and specialised roles. Within such systems, responsibility can easily become fragmented.

Those at the top of a hierarchy may justify harmful policies as necessary for national security, economic growth, or social order. Institutions and individuals within bureaucratic levels may diffuse responsibility by pointing to procedures or institutional rules. Media institutions may also shape public perception by softening or obscuring the reality of harmful actions. Civilians consuming such information may be limited to a neutral understanding of the situation due to the obscured nature of the information presented to them, and may therefore comply.

Key takeaways

Bandura’s theory helps explain how individuals or institutions continue to propagate violence by reframing and disengaging from moral standards through cognitive and linguistic mechanisms, instead of openly rejecting morality.

Recognising these behaviours becomes crucial if there is any hope of resisting and challenging individuals and institutions that rely on moral disengagement to sustain themselves. Understanding these mechanisms enables people to question such systems by demanding accountability, insisting on transparency, and using language that accurately reflects the reality of a situation.

Thus, the concept becomes especially important in the contemporary geopolitical context, as it helps people better navigate the world around them and critically question the narratives, policies, and decisions presented to them.