Moral disengagement theory states that ‘regular people’ justify moral atrocities by minimizing others’ suffering. Individuals tend to cognitively separate the moral component from an otherwise unethical and immoral act to rationalize engaging in it.

Moral Disengagement Theory

The most common form in which others' suffering is minimized occurs in the general tendency to underestimate the physical suffering of low-status outgroup members. This underestimation is In line with moral disengagement theory. Additionally, this psychological rationalization process may help explain how everyday sadists can reconcile cruel behavior with a positive self-view.

Boston University

- One possibility is that sadists judge the consequences of cruelty differently than do others
- Judgments about others’ suffering are subject to motivated reasoning in that suffering is often minimized

How do everyday sadists avoid feeling guilty from habitual cruelty?

Buckels, E. E. (2006). The psychology of everyday sadism. University of British Columbia, 1–165. https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0369056

The psychology of everyday sadism

Biased judgments occur when directional goals or motives influence the decision-making process. This occurs in self-deceptive enhancement in which
self-serving evaluations override accurate self-judgment. Because of this, it's theorized that sadistic individuals may be motivated to arrive at unconventional conclusions about harm and suffering, due to their appetite for cruelty.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After