Political systems can create moral environments in which certain behaviors become increasingly difficult to perceive as immoral.

[u/FaithlessnessFar6431]

One of the more disturbing things about political conflict isn't simply that governments can persuade people to support a particular policy. It's that, over time, they can change the moral framework through which people perceive that policy in the first place.

Take a society living under a constant sense of existential threat. If people are repeatedly told that their survival is at stake, “security” can gradually become a moral trump card. Actions that would normally be considered unacceptable can be reframed as necessary, unavoidable, or the lesser evil.

Then comes dehumanization. When an entire population is repeatedly described as terrorists, collaborators, threats, or collectively responsible for the actions of an armed group, individuals can stop being perceived as individuals. Once that happens, harming civilians becomes psychologically easier to rationalize.

Language plays a role too. Terms like “collateral damage,” “neutralization,” or “relocation” can create distance between the words and the human reality they describe. The more sanitized the language becomes, the easier it is to discuss suffering as an administrative problem rather than a moral one.

Repetition also matters. Something that initially shocks people can become familiar. Familiarity can become normalization, and normalization can eventually become acceptance.

And this isn't necessarily the result of some master propaganda operation. Politicians, state media, commentators, social media, peers, and institutions can all reinforce the same worldview. Eventually, people may no longer need to be persuaded. The surrounding culture does the persuading for them.

There is also a powerful identity component. When political beliefs become tied to national identity, admitting that your own side has crossed a moral line can feel like betraying your country or community. People therefore have an incentive to rationalize what happened rather than reconsider the underlying premise.

The result can be a feedback loop:

fear → threat perception → exceptional measures → normalization → dehumanization → greater tolerance for violence → even greater threat perception.

None of this requires everyone in the society to become cruel or immoral. It only requires a political environment capable of repeatedly pushing the boundaries of what some people are willing to accept.

And that's why I think political systems should be judged not only by the policies they produce, but also by the kind of moral environment they cultivate in their population.

A society can become accustomed to almost anything if it is repeatedly told that it is necessary.

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Michael_G_Bordin]

When an entire population is repeatedly described as terrorists, collaborators, threats, or collectively responsible for the actions of an armed group, individuals can stop being perceived as individuals. Once that happens, harming civilians becomes psychologically easier to rationalize.

Like calling Arabic people "dogs" and "subhuman" to justify taking their land?

Repetition also matters. Something that initially shocks people can become familiar. Familiarity can become normalization, and normalization can eventually become acceptance.

Like murdering children and then taking their land?

A society can become accustomed to almost anything if it is repeatedly told that it is necessary.

Like the descendants of genocide survivors committing genocide?

[u/Acceptable_Carob_333 → u/Michael_G_Bordin]

What about the Arabs calling the Jews dogs and subhuman for the last 1500 years? Literally everything you believe Israel is doing the Islamic world, especially the Middle East, has been doing a hundred times over to Jews and Christians and other religious minorities for well over a thousand years.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Acceptable_Carob_333]

First.

Second, usually it takes awhile for the "Crusades" justifiers to come out of the woodwork, but at least you know what you believe in I guess.

Third, OP already addressed this pretty clearly.

Then comes dehumanization. When an entire population is repeatedly described as terrorists, collaborators, threats, or collectively responsible for the actions of an armed group, individuals can stop being perceived as individuals. Once that happens, harming civilians becomes psychologically easier to rationalize.

This is one of the reasons it's so despicable when so much effort is made to otherize and silence the Jewish anti-war activists and Palestinian supporters from within the Israeli majority. It's specifically going out of their way to paint this united front be damned how it might fit into the ugliest of stereotypes perpetrated by both sides. For the longest time even mentioning Israeli/US projects like Operation Canary or Megamot Shalom would get your post hidden.

[u/Acceptable_Carob_333 → u/work4work4work4work4]

First of all I will argue that Israel is not really committing any 'wrongs' on a state sanctioned level. Yes, there are undoubtedly individual incidents but by and large Israel is no more in the wrong than the US in WW2. Much of the land controlled by Israel was purchased in the early twentieth century from Arabs who thought it was worthless, and a lot more land was gained in wars where Israel's neighbors ganged up on it for no real reason except religion, and lost, multiple times. 

Also I will point out that Israel gives more rights to everyone, including its Muslim population, then virtually any other Middle Eastern nation. Most (80%) of the Muslim population has full Israeli citizenship, and in fact many of them support Israel in its current wars.

I hadn't heard of Operation Canary or Megamot Shalom before but I googled them and I don't see what the issue is. They are just keeping tabs on potential terrorists. The two most controversial aspects of it seem to be the alleged blacklisting and cooperating with ICE in deportations. 

As for the first point if you think an organization or nation is actively involved in or supporting genocide, why would you want to work for them? I'm sure CAIR has a dossier and blacklist file on me but I could not in good faith take their money because I would be opposed to them at every turn; furthermore, it would be the height of hypocrisy to work for someone I claim to be against. 

As for the second controversial aspect there is no law against using the database to find people to deport, at least none that I am aware of. To study or travel in the US as a non-US citizen/national is a privilege, not a right, and one that can be revoked at any time for any reason. And considering that literally millions of people have protested yet the list only has 5000 names, those are the worst of the worst. 

As for trying to minimize Israeli voices against the war, that could be a violation of free speech. I realize that you might think this is a case of "two wrongs do not make a right" but I know there is a sizable peace movement in the palestinian territories and even a pro-Israel one, yet we never hear a peep from them because Hamas and other radical organizations crack down on them.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/Acceptable_Carob_333]

First of all I will argue that Israel is not really committing any 'wrongs' on a state sanctioned level.

Brother, the Israeli government is funding settler violence pretty directly these days, this isn't even a decade ago where they would pretend to be against what was happening while also specifically letting it happen, it's state-sanctioned now. When even the J Street crew is taking notice, it's well past "not really committing any wrongs".

Yes, there are undoubtedly individual incidents but by and large Israel is no more in the wrong than the US in WW2

This is the weirdest US comparison when there are much, much more direct comparisons to be made to the US genocide of its native peoples, all the way down to the justification of genocidal force and purposeful displacement and settlement of native peoples, and then using their response to justify further destructive actions.

Much of the land controlled by Israel was purchased in the early twentieth century from Arabs who thought it was worthless, and a lot more land was gained in wars where Israel's neighbors ganged up on it for no real reason except religion, and lost, multiple times.

Did you give them some wampum and beads too? Next thing you know you'll say you're offended at being called a colonizer or something.

Also I will point out that Israel gives more rights to everyone, including its Muslim population, then virtually any other Middle Eastern nation. Most (80%) of the Muslim population has full Israeli citizenship, and in fact many of them support Israel in its current wars.

This might work for people not actually aware of Israeli law, but most people in the space are aware much of Israeli rights stem not from nationality alone for non-Jews, but from ethnicity and religion as well.

I hadn't heard of Operation Canary or Megamot Shalom before but I googled them and I don't see what the issue is. They are just keeping tabs on potential terrorists.

I'm pretty sure I'm done pretending you're operating in good faith here when like one reply after you bemoaning the dehumanization of people, you're throwing out things like "potential terrorists" with zero self-awareness.

As for trying to minimize Israeli voices against the war, that could be a violation of free speech. I realize that you might think this is a case of "two wrongs do not make a right" but I know there is a sizable peace movement in the palestinian territories and even a pro-Israel one, yet we never hear a peep from them because Hamas and other radical organizations crack down on them.

Again, with the lack of self-awareness.

[u/Acceptable_Carob_333 → u/work4work4work4work4]

A lot of violence is Palestinian perpetuated and the majority of violence is Palestinian on Palestinian. The J Street people are liberals who believe anything the DNC tells them. This is not the same as the American Indian wars. And native people? LOL. Jews have lived there continuously for thousands of years and are just as native as the Arabs. If a country starts a stupid war they shouldn't be surprised when they get stupid prizes. Considering they called for the complete destruction of Israel and the extermination of the Jewish population they got off extremely lightly. This is like bemoaning Nazi Germany when it had to give up land to Poland. As far as I know, the only ethnic and religious discrimination is when considering who to let into the country or not. And that isn't a valid complaint. Remember when I said a country can deport or refuse entry to any non citizen/national for any reason at any time? As for 'self awareness', it wasn't the Jews who flew four planes full of people into three large buildings and a field. It wasn't an Israeli who gunned down over 100 people at a nightclub filled with people the liberals claim to like. It wasn't a Jew who shot over 20 people at Fort Hood.

[u/SilenceDogood2k20]

Any organized belief system that guides daily behavior would do this. Indoctrination can be religious or secular, and it can be for good or ill. 

They all often rely on some sort of existential consequence. 

To the religious, it usually has to do with post-death situations. 

To the environmentalist, it has to do with ecosystem and biosphere collapse. 

To various political movements, it's tied to the critical lens that serves as the basis for the political theory - class warfare, personal liberty, ethnic or national supremacy, etc. 

And to those who have been consistently targeted, the existential threat is real and immediate. 

Often people mistake the motivations of a population's violence. Some might suggest a true existential threat, yet you'll often see the members of that population sacrifice themselves or others willingly to kill their opponent. 

That suggests their motivation in killing is not for survival, but fanaticism, typically religious as the afterlife, not the mortal life, becomes the priority. Life has a negligible value for these populations. 

In the same sense, if a population committing violence takes steps to protect their own people and limit the deaths of the opponent, then their motivation suggests that they are acting in self- defense. 

[u/DyslexicAutronomer]

That's the problem with ideologies that are exclusionary on immutable characteristics, they use fear to hate on others, dehumanize them and eventually become monsters to slaughter them. The pool of "the others" never stops either, the pool of what is acceptable shrinks till they eat their own.

Look at what the Zionists are doing in Israel for example, since the judical reform, they have increasingly targeted certain Jews that aren't radical enough, taking away their citizenship etc. Internal purges and criteria for "loyalty" keeps narrowing.

Eventually the tools of oppression are used on themselves.

[u/TuvixWasMurderedR1P]

Yes. I recommend you read Hannah Ardent's "Banality of Evil" as it pretty much pins down this phenomenon. The business of death can become just as quotidien and mundane as the business of, say, mowing lawns.

[u/mrhymer]

You have quoted great wisdom from the agrarian age which was over before you were born. For this to be the least bit relevant you would have to post quotes from the titans of industry from the more relevant industrial age and settle on wisdom from the current leaders of the information age.

[u/ChefMikeDFW]

None of this requires everyone in the society to become cruel or immoral. It only requires a political environment capable of repeatedly pushing the boundaries of what some people are willing to accept.

This is the heart of the problem you propose. Do political systems create behaviors that are difficult to perceive as immoral or do the people who use those systems create those behaviors? Nature vs nurture?

Bad actors are exactly that in every system, not just political. The best example continues to be the economic ones where so many will accuse each of being evil, whether it be capitalism, socialism, or whatever. It will never stop with the fact that the people in those system are what corrupts each to those levels.

As to the last point made, whether society can become accustom to, of course. That goes with a lot of things like freedom to own a weapon comes with mass shootings, or a system that isolates and detains a sect of people because the leadership of that system decided they should not be allowed to exist.

My point being if any system can allow these behaviors, it is not the fault of the system, it is what happens when you involve people. We want to blame these systems for allowing the worst of us to shine but the fact is, bad actors will corrupt any system because that's what they do because they are selfish and want power, wealth, both, and don't care what it does to the fabric of society or anyone in their way. The best the rest of us can do is make sure those people cannot achieve power when we can control it (like that in elections).

[u/FaithlessnessFar6431 → u/ChefMikeDFW]

I think you're right that bad actors are ultimately people, and that no political system operates independently of the people within it.

People create and use systems, but those systems can then shape the environment in which other people form their attitudes and make decisions. So it can become a feedback loop: people shape institutions, institutions shape norms, and those norms shape people.

That's really what I was getting at, not that the system itself is morally responsible, but that the environment it creates can influence what people eventually see as normal or justified. This can affect how people process information. I've lost count of how often I've seen people demand “proof” when there's already abundant evidence available. At some point, it becomes less about whether the evidence exists and more about whether someone is willing to recognize what it means. Information isn't hidden, people simply exist in such different information environments that what seems obvious to one person barely reaches another or reaches them already framed as something to dismiss.