In a previous post I referred to tactics of moral disengagement (TMDs). I listed eight such tactics, but didn’t go into much detail about them, what they do, or what their consequences are. In this post I will go into a little more detail about these tactics and their implications. Following are the eight TMDs grouped into three clusters, taken from an article I wrote for the Real Estate Educator’s Association Journal:
Group One: Cognitive misconstrual of reprehensible behavior in a way that increases its moral acceptability (Bandura, 1986).
• moral justification: What I am doing is morally just. The good outweighs the bad.
• euphemistic labeling: I am not murdering people. I am exterminating vermin.
• advantageous comparison: My actions are trivial compared to terrorists.
Group Two: Individual obscures or distorts the effects of harmful actions (Bandura, 1986).
• displacement of responsibility: I was only following orders. It was not my fault.
• diffusion of responsibility: I am but one cog in a large machine. My function should not be scrutinized unless everyone is under suspicion.
• disregard or distortion of consequences: The results of my actions are minimal. There are no real victims.
Final Decision! Both Kamagra and find out for source levitra uk offer the same benefits in treating sexual dysfunction. Men like the presence of a naked woman for sexual stimulation and they treat sex as one of the very possible causes dentech.co on line levitra behind it, and problem of the erectile dysfunction. The Asia Pacific League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), International League of Associations for Rheumatology (APLAR), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR), the Association of Rheumatology Health experts, and the European League against Rheumatism (ELR), are the major established organizations and arrange many activities related to this field. online prescriptions for cialis We love things purchase cheap levitra which make us happy.
Group Three: Reducing identification with the targets of harmful acts (Bandura, 1986).
• dehumanization: The victims are not human, therefore we can do what we want.
• attribution of blame: I am just reacting to the harm they caused. My actions are therefore their fault, not mine.
One example of matching a real-estate-related case study with one of the aforementioned TMDs is:
A real estate appraiser accepts an assignment. The subject property is located in an area with which the appraiser has considerable experience. Upon seeing the completed appraisal report the client, a lending institution, informs the appraiser that “the number is too low.” To make the client happy, the appraiser increases the value 50%. The appraiser justifies her actions by saying,”I am helping my client, thus helping the community.” (moral justification) “It isn’t really fraud. After all, my value is just my opinion.” (euphemistic labeling) “The lender ordered me to do it.” (displacement of responsibility)
An instructor in a USPAP (Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice) class could take this case study and ask the students to fill out the worksheet, then have the students categorize the TMDs at play. But this process only makes sense if the students have a proper grounding in ethical theory.
Another example of applying TMDs to a case study:
A likable real estate investor creates a series of DVDs that purport to show the public how to invest in foreclosures. The first DVD is free (“Just pay shipping and handling!” exhorts the infomercial). Thereafter the buyer is cajoled into paying for a foreclosure newsletter that contains generic advice and a list of foreclosure addresses. After several months and numerous complaints to the attorney general, the investor moves on to bilk more customers. After all, “There is one born every minute.” Several TMDs could apply: disregard of consequences (“Each buyer is only out a couple thousand dollars.”); and euphemistic labeling and dehumanization (“These aren’t real people. They are just suckers.”). How many more can be spotted?
Next, I’ll discuss some neurophysiological explanations for these TMDs.
I remember reading an article (Newsweek, perhaps?) about a person from a certain country/region I won’t name. He was an expert at making computer viruses. He actually told the reporter that his victims were in the wrong because they bought pirated computer programs from him. Therefore, they deserved the damage those viruses made to their computers from having bought pirated goods. The fact that HE inserted those viruses and sold pirated software did not seem to be a factor in his vigilante-type beliefs. I wish I could remember where I read the article. And then the author concluded that the man’s morals were just part of his culture, in effect excusing the behavior. Let’s see: I would place this virus maker in Group Three: dehumanization and attribution of blame. One of my college roommate’s favorite comments was “Of course he was completely justified in his actions, but he was also completely wrong.” I use that line often, even though it’s not a very strong argument. Keep blogging, Sam.
Hi Rachel!
Thanks for the post. Morality can change over time. Morality is also relative. And, to confuse issues further, the same action might be moral in one case, yet immoral in another. If a person’s morals allow him to create a virus, and he excuses it because it is acceptable in his culture, we look to codes of ethics and canons of law: Are his actions legal in the country where he unleashed the virus? I suspect the answer is “no.” He can defend his morals all he wants as he sits in a hoosegow for 20 years.
I like your roommate’s saying. It points to the complexity of morality vs. ethics/law.
Come back again Rachel. You are always welcome.
Sam