Do state governments have the right to kill civilians to defeat international terrorism? Views from US, Israel and South Africa

Author:

Shachat Michael,Hong Fang,Lin Yijing,Desivilya Helena Syna,Yassour-Borochowitz Dalit,Akhurst Jacqui,Leach Mark M.,Malley-Morrison Kathleen

Abstract

Purpose This study aim to examine the themes of moral disengagement (MD) and engagement in reasoning regarding a putative governmental right to kill innocent civilians when fighting terrorism. Design/methodology/approach In total, 147 participants from Israel, 101 from the USA and 80 from South Africa provided quantitative rating scale responses and qualitative explanations about such a putative right. Qualitative responses were coded for presence or absence of indices of MD and engagement. Findings In ANOVAs by gender and country, men scored higher than women on rating scale scores indicating support for the right; there were no significant national differences on these scores. Chi-square analyses with the coded qualitative responses indicated more men than women gave morally disengaged responses, proportionately more South Africans than Israelis provided morally disengaged responses and proportionately more South Africans and Americans than Israelis provided morally engaged responses. Pearson correlation analyses indicated that MD was positively correlated with rating scale scores and moral engagement was negatively related to rating scale scores in all three countries. Research limitations/implications Regarding limitations, it is difficult to know how the omission of qualitative explanations of rating scale responses by many participants influenced the statistical findings – or how to interpret the more restricted level of qualitative responses in Israel and South Africa as compared to the USA. Social implications Programs designed to counteract MD have the potential for helping reduce support for war and its inhumanities across diverse nations. Originality/value This is the first study on MD to compare American, Israeli and South African perspectives on the justifiability of human rights violations in the war on terror. The findings go beyond earlier studies in finding gender differences in MD that occurred across three very different nations in three very different parts of the world.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Law,Sociology and Political Science,Social Psychology,Health (social science)

Reference41 articles.

1. Moral disengagement and building resilience to violent extremism: an education intervention;Studies in Conflict & Terrorism,2014

2. Attitudes towards war in the Middle east from an extremism model perspective;International Psychology Bulletin,2007

3. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in terrorism;Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, States of Mind,1990

4. Social cognitive theory in cultural context;Applied Psychology,2002

5. A war of one’s own: understanding the gender gap in support for war;Public Opinion Quarterly,2011

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3