Moral Disengagement
Moral disengagement is the process by which people justify emotionally, morally, and physically, behavior they or others would normally consider reprehensible. By instituting moral disengagement, societies, and therefore the people that make up said societies, are able to plan and execute certain actions that, if not morally disengaged from their normal self-sanctioning and self-controlling behaviors, would be undertaken with extreme difficulty at best. However, most people possess certain self-regulatory and self-sanctioning behavior mechanisms that prevent them from committing inhumane acts against others. The problem with self-controlling behavior mechanisms, though, is two-fold. First, the behavior is founded on the willingness of the individual to adhere to the humane behavior. Secondly, the existence of several mechanisms with which circumvention of self-regulatory behavior is facilitated allow a readily accessible means of coming to terms with inhumane actions.
One of the main types of moral disengagement is the process of reconstruing detrimental conduct by moral justification. According to Bandura, "One set of disengagement practices operates on the construal of the behavior itself. People do not ordinarily engage in reprehensible conduct until they have justified to themselves the morality of their actions. What is culpable can be made righteous through cognitive reconstrual. In this process, detrimental conduct is made personally and socially acceptable by portraying it as in the service of moral purposes. People can then act on a moral imperative." That is to say, that if people are having difficulty with a certain type of behavior they are committing, they can mold the behavior ...
... middle of paper ...
...ut the article states that simply by changing the way something is referred to is a means of inciting inhumane actions without the hindrance of self-regulating or self-sanctioning behavior. Therefore, who has the right or power to decide what constitutes someone's thoughts, and when the thoughts have crossed the line and become hate crimes?
In conclusion, moral disengagement is a means by which people can more easily commit inhumane acts, and is a theory as to why people commit these acts. However, the article that defines moral disengagement and its mechanisms so well fails to propose any fixes for the social conditions that it claims are the most likely to cause outbursts of heinous behavior.
Bibliography:
Bandura, Albert. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral
control. Journal of Social Issues, 46. p. 27-46.
General Strain Theory views most humans as being lawful and moral citizens in their society. The average citizen only turns to deviance when they become inflicted with negative emotions brought on by one or more of the three main types of strain. The three types ...
Individuals' personalities and overall quality of living are significantly influenced by several interrelated sources ranging from one's upbringing and quality of relationships to their own feelings of self-esteem and worth. Though this may seem relatively easy and un-complex, countless people today are engaged in persistent antisocial, criminal behavior, and seem unable to find an alternative, legal, means of living. While many have tried to explain such behavior through various theories, the causes of criminal activity remain to be satisfactorily clarified. Essentially, antisocial criminal activity has two aspects to it. Antisocial behavior is that in which one shuns society and others, while criminal activity is the act of performing a deed that violates an established law of the community. Obviously, such actions have serious consequences, which can range from community service and a fine to prison time. Even though there are several reasons that one may become an antisocial criminal, two theories of personality that provide reasonable explanations of this phenomenon, each in their own way, are the psychoanalytic and phenomenological theories.
In the world we live in today, deviance happens to play an integral role in within the societies that scatter our globe, whether we like it or not. Deviance describes actions or behaviors that violate the social norms of our society. These behaviors can violate formally enacted rules, such as laws that are put into place by government, as well as the informal type of “guidelines” that various cultures have informally established and shaped for themselves. As one may come to understand, norms are essentially expectations that are standard to a certain culture. These norms gently guide people in a society in “what to do,” and “what not to do,” in compliance with their societies' norms. With this said, it is important to keep in mind that social norms differ from culture to culture. One act that may be considered deviant in a particular society, may be generally accepted in another. Three main sociological theories of deviance include the cultural transmission theory (also known as the differential association theory), the labeling theory, and the control theory.
Shootings. Homicides. Bombings. It’s safe to say that crime is very abundant in today’s society, filling our news casts with daily reminders of the negative ora that is associated with criminal behavior. But why do people commit the crimes that they commit? Theologians have been studying crime for years, trying to determine the main reasons as to who commits crime and why. These theologians, such as Edwin Sutherland, Ronald Akers, and Robert Agnew, each take very unique view of criminal behavior, giving society many rationalities for these why people exhibit these behaviors.
When the topic of hate and bias crime legislation is brought up two justifications commonly come to mind. In her article entitled “Why Liberals Should Hate ‘Hate Crime Legislation” author Heidi M. Hurd discusses the courts and states views that those who commit hate and bias crimes ought to be more severely punished. She takes into consideration both sides of the argument to determine the validity of each but ultimately ends the article in hopes to have persuaded the reader into understanding and agreeing with her view that laws concerning the punishment of hate and bias laws should not be codified. Hate crime is described as a violent, prejudice crime that occurs when a victim is targeted because of their membership in a specific group. The types of crime can vary from physical assault, vandalism, harassment or hate speech. Throughout the article Hurd tried to defend her view and explain why there should be no difference of punishment for similar crimes no matter the reason behind it. Her reason behind her article came from the law that President Obama signed in 2009 declaring that crimes committed with hatred or prejudice should have more sever punishments. While the court has their own views to justify their reasoning behind such decisions, in the article Hurd brings up points and facts to prove the wrongfulness of creating such a law. However, though Hurd has made her views clear in the following essay I will discuss reasons why the penalties are justifiable, why they should receive the same degree of punishment, less punishment and my personal view on the topic.
Some specialist consider the so called "self-punishment" for disgraceful behavior as autosadism or moral masochism.
Several individuals within society typically follow social guidelines that they are unaware of performing. Social guidelines such as stopping at a red light or saying thank you when someone has done something for you. These social guidelines or norms give society a script to follow regarding their behavior and actions. Although norms are the acceptable actions and behaviors that society is taught to perform, there are occurrences where individuals stay away from those in which they are now enacting deviance. To act deviant is considered to break away or do something different of a social norm. There are several forms of deviance that occur frequently within society that violate social norms and hinder society’s overall function.
The strain theory by Merton helps to deepen our understanding by connecting deviance and crime in society to the antagonistic correlation between cultural goals and institutionalized means. Merton argues that deviant in society depends on two criteria or elements which are categorized by whether or not people accept institutionalized means and cultural goals of society. Most of the people in the society will be going to accept the goals as well as a means to achieve the goals, therefore, they are not deemed as breaking social norms. But some of the people that are rejected the means or goals or both (means and goals), will be considered as deviance or criminal.
Crime is an irrelevant concept as it is tied to the formal social control mechanism of the State; deviance is a concept that is owned by sociology thus our study should be the sociology of deviance, rather than criminology
History shows people in ancient times committed crimes which violated social norms and acceptable conduct despite threats of harsh punishment. There are theories regarding causes of crime but that by Emile Durkheim is quite prominent in that anomie arises as result of mismatch between individual or group standards when compared to the acceptable standards of wider society; this mismatch leads to deviance which in turn came from loss of social identity and self-regulation.
The term criminal desistance refers to when offenders desist, or stop, committing crime. Desistance from crime exists when an individual has an absence of criminal behavior in their lives for a sustained period of time. By studying desistance, a better understanding of what causes individuals to commit crime is created; as well as, a better understanding as to why certain individuals discontinue their lives of crime. The criminal justice field often encompasses, serving justice by locking people up and keeping the “bad guys” away from the general public. Little thought was given as to what can be done in order to help prevent people from committing crime, until more recent years. Most criminological theories attempt to explain why people commit
...lower. They denote to the individual as such and the individual instigates to discuss to himself. Subordinate deviance outcomes and unconventionality perseveres in the individual. The deviant is obligatory into the establishment of further deviants and their nonconformity is strengthened. One opposition to this model is that certain determined deviants obligate not ever been determined and branded. Nevertheless, the labeling theory similarly originates into outcome when individuals tag themselves, thoughtful of themselves while they reflect others perceive individual. The classification a deviant can distress the unconventional into revulsion at his or her nonconformity, so they will leave deviancy.
Our society as a whole is beginning to evolve into numerous classifications. Our society branches off of the social norm structure that we have thrived from for our whole existence. Now however, people in society are going throughout their lives not always aware of the impacts that their choices and influences make on the everyday world around them. From the time people are able to grasp the concept of right and wrong until it is their turn to pass down what is right or wrong, they are not only affecting the social structure of life, but the lives of so many around them, whether they may know it or not. Although most people in society try to avoid the negative forces around them, it is now becoming an excruciating challenge to avoid the pressure and rise to a daunting task. With so many types of deviance floating around the air, it is now nearly impossible to try and not get exposed to deviance and the consequences that come with it. Deviance does not just occur in one place either. Now, it is harder than ever to not catch this behavior. It is
In Criminology, a behaviour that is not considered to be a norm in society is known as deviance. This may differ throughout the world as some cultures have a different interpretation of norms (Phofl, 1985). The bulk of deviant behavior will be looked as discontentment from those in society or even punishment from the system. Deviance can fall into many classifications such as addictions and delinquency. We will look at deviance and about how and why people are deviant. Some theories support the idea of deviance being biological while others refute this and believe the idea of it being caused by your social construction.
Complete free exercise of will inhibits individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm onto others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act. People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr...