d on moral principles, as the perpetrators commit such heinous acts that they are required to resort to believing that they have the right to do what they do based on their ideological, religious, or political beliefs. The normal human being would be unable to commit such acts unless he or she thought they were doing the right thing based on one or more of the three above mentioned beliefs. Another mechanism with which to attain moral disengagement is referred to as euphemistic labeling. “Language shapes people’s thought patterns, on which they base many of their actions. Activities take on a very different appearance depending on what they are called,” according to Bandura. As I see it, euphemistic labeling is a ten dollar replacement for political correctness. What does that mean? To make certain acts come off as being less destructive than they really are, all one has to do is simply identify the acts with a more benign term. In his article, Bandura relates a study held by Gambino, in which Gambino identifies the different varieties of euphemisms. According to this study, “… palliative expressions are widely used to make the reprehensible respectable.” This is the politically correct aspect of euphemistic labeling. Palliative expressions are terms that mean something, but make it sound much less destructive than it really is. For example, the term innocent bystanders is changed to “collateral damage,” killing is changed to “terminating with extreme prejudice,” and so on and so forth. The second form of euphemistic labeling is known as the agentless passive form. In this process, people commit moral disengagement by doing away with individuality, and making it seem as though illegitimate acts are carried out by a valid group or force rather than a single, culpable “agent.” A third major mechanism that allows moral disengagement is advantageous compa...
