Ethical standards and how they affect public trust: Moral disengagement theory

Ethical standards and how they affect public trust

Moral disengagement theory

According to the moral disengagement theory; people may try to justify some unethical and inhumane acts through creating excuses for the alleged malpractice. These individuals are able to separate their actions from that of the society’s moral expectations by disabling their self-condemnation mechanism. In this regard, the perpetrators of the unethical and immoral acts are unable to fully utilize their human conscience hence making them to feel less guilty of crimes committed.

Lynndie England, who was a former US army attached in Abu Ghraib prison; is one of the best examples of the application of moral disengagement theory. After she was found guilty of causing physical, sexual and psychological torture to Iraqi prisoners of war; England showed little remorse for her unethical behavior. To justify her actions, she argued that it was moral to inhumanely treat the prisoners of war since they were their enemies. By dehumanizing the Iraqi prisoners, England was able to view them as subhuman creatures that deserved little or no empathy.

In addition, Lynndie England tried to justify her actions by displacing responsibility for the atrocities committed. In her argument, she claimed that the Iraqi soldiers would have done the same or even worse to a captured US soldier. Through such claims, she aimed at sanitizing her actions by appealing to the mentality of the society. Similar situations are often common in the corporate businesses whereby admitting to a business malpractice may result in large amounts of losses. For example, in the 1970’s; the Ford Motor Company distanced itself from claims that the Pinto model was responsible for causing up to 500 deaths in the decade. In their argument, the Ford Company shifted responsibility of the accidents to the drivers’ inability to drive carefully. Hence, by applying the moral disengagement theory; the company was able to justify their unethical practices hence prevented a total recall of the entire Pinto model. 

In reference to England’s case, psychologists found a relationship between susceptibility to unethical behaviors and reasoning as a group (Sreedharaan, 42). This is because acting as a group lessens an individual’s self-condemnation ability by dissolving the respective responsibilities. In the case, England performed the atrocities to the prisoners of war when in the company of other US soldiers hence lessening the immoral nature of the situation. The unethical crimes would however not have been committed in situations where each soldier was acting single handedly.

On the other hand, moral disengagement is widely applicable theory is widely applicable in the society through misrepresentation of information. This is commonly practiced by politicians, the media and the law enforcement agencies. In the law enforcement; suspects may be coerced and threatened into confessing to a crime. In some instances, the law enforcement members may plant evidence that could be used to prosecute known offenders. Even though such methods are unethical; such officers are able to justify their actions by claiming to have acted in the best interest of the society.

In conclusion, through moral disengagement; various individuals in the society have been able to justify their unethical and immoral activities. In the case of Lynndie England, she tried to justify her actions by dehumanization of the victims, shifting responsibility for the crimes committed and also diffusing her responsibility. Even though the society can sanitize immoral activities in special circumstances; persons in authority should always act according to the desired ethical standards thus enabling them to earn public trust.

Works cited

Sreedharaan, Bharat. Restoring values: Keys to integrity, ethical behavior and good governance. Carlifonia: Sage publishers. 2010