The research paper examines the causes of justification: cognitive dissonance and rationalisation. In the first cause, to avoid dissonance one resorts to justification. Secondly, because of rationalisation, where the mind overpowers the intellect, one justifies. Examples are drawn from different walks of life like the media and law to highlight its impact in the society. The general effect of justification is that it camouflages the evils of society and gives a false sense of rationality. Based on faulty reasoning, immoral actions are justified as being moral. Further analysis draws out different types of justification prevalent in the society such as market, industrial, civic, inspiration, domestic and fame. The conclusion arrived at points …show more content…
the action of showing something to be right or reasonable: the justification of revolutionary action; he made a speech in justification of his career(Oxford Dictionary, www.oxforddictionaries.com) 2. something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary; the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning:the justification of barbarous means by holy ends - H.J. Muller (elook.org Dictionary) 3. a reason why something is correct and morally right: he considered misrule a justification for revolution(www.macmillandictionary.com) 4. to prove or show something to be right, just or reasonable: the person appointed has fully justified our confidence,all these incidents were used again as a justification for my sacking (Chambers Dictionary, www.chambersharrap.co.uk) Special Meanings: • Law : a plea showing sufficient reason for an action(Chambers Dictionary, …show more content…
To resolve this dissonance one can resort to justification. The theory also takes into account people’s need to preserve a stable, positive self-concept. E. Tory Higgins of the New York University published a psychological review in 1987, Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect, which substantiates the dissonance theory. It holds that people are motivated to maintain a sense of consistency among their beliefs and perceptions of themselves, and become distressed when there is a discrepancy between the “actual self” and an “ideal” or “ought” self.Further the review explains cognitive dissonance as follows: “Amonga wide array of possibilities, three basic types of incompatibleself-beliefs can be identified: (a) inconsistencies between one'sself-perceived attributes (or self-concept) and external, behavioral feedback related to one's self-perceptions; (b) contradictions among one's self-perceived attributes that impede a coherent and unified self-concept; and (c) discrepancies betweenone's self-perceived attributes and some standard or self-guide. Aronson's (1969) version of cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957), with its emphasis on self-expectancies, is an example of the former case. The theory proposes that when peoplebehave in a manner that is inconsistent with their self-concept, they experience discomfort
First to determine if terrorism is in fact right or wrong we must understand what it is. Although there is not a universal definition to describe terrorism I relate closely to Walzers definition which is: “a random murder of innocent people, intended to frighten a population into demanding that their governments negotiate for their safety.” In Walzer’s article “Terrorism” (Cahn, 239) he lists the purpose and methods of terrorism as to “destroy the moral of a nation or a class, to undercut its solidarity; its method is the random murder of innocent people.” Innocent people or noncombatants, as people call them, are described as normal working civilians who do not play a role in the government or have any control of what is happening politically. These innocent people are the ones who are targeted with no regards to political affiliation, the only thing that makes them the target is simply belonging to a certain group. To offer an example in 911 innocent people were killed and were chosen only because they worked in the World Trade Center, they were not chosen for anything they had done politically. Wal...
In “Terrorism and Morality,” Haig Khatchadourian argues that terrorism is always wrong. Within this argument, Khatchadourian says that all forms of terrorism are wrong because the outcome deprives those terrorized of their basic humanity. To this end, Khatchadourian says that even forms of terrorism that are designed to bring about a moral good are wrong because of the methods used to achieve that good. Before Khatchadourian spells out why terrorism is wrong, he defines what terrorism is, what causes terrorism, and what people believe terrorism to mean. With a working definition in place, Khatchadourian examines terrorism’s role in a just war and shows that terrorism is never just, even during war. With the assertion that terrorism, even during wartime is unjust, Khatchadourian analyzes the variations of innocence and non-innocence surrounding the victims of a terrorist attack. The analysis of innocence and non-innocence is accomplished through review of the principal of discrimination and the principal of proportion and how each relates to terrorism. From these philosophical and ethical standpoints, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism is unjust and wrong because of the way it groups and punishes the innocent with the guilty, not allowing the victim to properly respond to the charges against them. Finally, Khatchadourian looks at how terrorism is always wrong because of the way it denies a person their basic human rights. In examination of person’s human rights, Khatchadourian finds that terrorism specifically “violates its targets’ right to be treated as moral persons,” as it inflicts pain, suffering and death to those who are not deserving (298).
In the end, the pursuit of an unproblematic theory of justification seems like a Sisyphean task. All of the major theories have glaring weaknesses and it appears that a compromise between certain elements of the different views will be necessary to move closer to a more acceptable view. In this paper I have tried to show some of the principal weaknesses with the two chief theories of justification and to look for an alternate, weak foundationalism, which seems to me to be a legitimate way forward.
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.
Justification. Defined as the act of justifying something. To serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for our actions, based on actual or believed information. Throughout the history of not only the modern world, but certainly back to the “barest essentials of reason” our species have made decisions that have effectively shaped our world into what it is today. Or have not. The judgments made in the past may also have been relatively insignificant to a larger picture, but would still be important in one persons or a group of people’s day-to-day life. Either way, choices made in any way, shape, or form, are based on what the decision maker believes to be true or morally right. Timothy Findley displays the abovementioned opinion-based judgments in the novel The Wars. From the background behind the novel, to the ending scene of the main character being burned to the ground in a flaming barn, many choices are made. Whether large and important or small and insignificant, Mr. Findley asks us as readers and as humans to look into ourselves to uncover the reasoning behind the choices, as well as our own actions and the actions of our leaders. The justification for most of the aforementioned incidents in The Wars can be classified under 3 broad-based ideas: safety, self-interest or the moral/general good.
“I didn't want to do it..but then I did it”. A common phrase spoken by many who have experience cognitive dissonance. The Cognitive Dissonance theory deals with small occurrences that happen everyday, but for help with breaking down this theory, extreme examples help to explain the theory in better detail. In the movie Mean Girls, the plastics are evil & but their approval is what Cady desires which define her two conflicting beliefs. When she gets closer to them and acts like them, she tries to justify her action by saying she is just “spying” on them, this is said to reduce her cognitive dissonance, which in fact, she is turning into them. For example, if a person buys a really nice television, even though they can't really afford it ,but
Piper, John. The Future of Justification: a Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007. Print.
Cognitive dissonance is a theory presented by Leon Festinger’s in 1957. This theory suggested that we have an inner drive to hold our attitudes and beliefs in harmony. When we have two inconsistent cognitions this creates dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is physically uncomfortable to experience. There’s some negative physical tension that you feel any time you recognize two inconsistent thoughts or realize that you’ve done something through your behavior that contradicts you true attitudes and beliefs. Dissonance gets in the way of finding some sense of truth. In general, if we want to understand the world, then we want a clear, consistent picture of it. Anything that makes us feel inconsistency of something that’s a problem, and we are motivated to restore consistency again. We can restore
Cognitive dissonance theory is the theory that we act to reduce the discomfort we feel when two of our thoughts are inconsistent. There are three methods that dissonance can be condensed. Individuals can modify one or more of the beliefs, attitude, behaviors, and more, this way the connection between the two elements are in agreement with one another. Another method is to gather new information that will compensate the dissonant beliefs. The third method is to decrease the importance of the beliefs, attitudes, behavior, and etc. Dissonance theory does not say that these methods will work; only people in the state of cognitive dissonance will use these methods to condense the degree of their dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory
Cognitive dissonance can be described as the feeling of discomfort resulting from holding two conflicting beliefs. It can also be said to be the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. A well-known psychologist Leon Festinger (1919–89), introduced this concept in the late 1950s where he proved that, when confronted with challenging new information; most people are observed to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists in one way or the other (Festinger, 04).
Imagine a person who is an avid animal lover and activist but also owns and wears a real fur jacket. These two beliefs and actions are inconsistent with each other and cause a distressing contradiction known as cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the distressing mental state caused by an inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action (Griffin 2006). People have an instinctual desire to keep their actions and beliefs in harmony and when they are experiencing inconsistencies they deal with it by trying to reduce it. Cognitive dissonance theory has been around since the late 1950s when it was published by Leon Festinger and has made a big impact on the educational community. This theory has been researched extensively over the last 50 years and there are many important and interesting research findings that have been produced. This is an important theory that is very relevant and can be useful in the practice of persuasion and can also help to explain people’s behaviors.
person “usually a person who has committed a legal or moral transgression”. Justification in terrorism is used to reach a goal for political gain. Morris is against the killing of innocent people for any reason. I agree with Morris, because no one should lose their lives for political gain or any other unjustified reason but I also believe that lives will inevitably be lost for the greater good of the population. The will never be a war without casualties. Kantian and Utilitarianism principles oppose the killing of people of any kind regardless of the reward.
Decisions are the basis of human history, advancement, and modern society. Important decisions often cause a conflict within a person as he or she attempts to make a choice based on what he or she believes is right, as well as what he or she believes is wise. Throughout life and society, people find themselves at a crossroads of beliefs or thoughts with the justification of murder. This is due to the dissonance illustrated when they have mixed feelings with the idea that killing another human is wrong, although it seemingly appears unavoidable in certain situations. This inevitability is what justifies murder in the first place. These mixed feelings create a cognitive dissonance that impacts society in a detrimental manner because people in society care less about people being murdered due to the simple and common justification behind it.
The human psyche frequently experiences the phenomena of internal contradiction, followed by an internal struggle for some semblance of balance or consistency (Hall, 1998). Cognitive dissonance acts as motivation for people to behave in a manner that effectively reduces said dissonance and restores balance. Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance explores this occurrence and the subsequent actions that people take in order to create a balance between their ideals.
The first reason for asserting that terrorism cannot be justified is the slaughter of innocent people, which isn’t moral. Whether people uninvolved are killed isn‘t a concern to terrorists. Terrorism ignores the lives of many people completely and this directly conflicts with people who are close to those who have died in an accident due to terrorism. This is a reason why terrorism is atrocious and shouldn’t be justified.