Innocent cheaters: a new scale measuring the moral disengagement of marital infidelity

Marital infidelity is both socially perceived as immoral and very frequent. This contradiction might be explained through the process of moral disengagement, specifically by the use of certain socially shared moral justifications of infidelity, which consequently foster unfaithful behavior. This research developed and examined the Infidelity Moral Disengagement Scale (IMDS), aiming to capture the strategies of morally legitimizing infidelity used among people engaged in marital relationships. Across two studies (total N = 609 married participants) we investigated the dimensions and psychometric properties of the IMDS. Results showed that the dominant strategies of legitimizing marital infidelity are the diffusion of responsibility, the attribution of blame on the cheated partner, advantageous comparisons with other immoral acts, justifying infidelity through certain benefits, and minimizing its negative consequences. The IMDS emerged as negatively related to moral identity and strongly associated to people’s past infidelity and to their tendency to engage in unfaithful behaviors.

Inclusive businesses as a development strategy to fight poverty

Inclusive businesses implement policies aimed at bringing a marginalized part of the global population into value chains. This paper analyzes these social inclusion strategies which have gained increasing importance in the development debate. In order to do so, we have examined the role of two multilateral organizations – the United Nations and the World Bank – in constructing the concept of inclusive businesses and analyzed 107 cases which are considered inclusive. From the analysis of how inclusive businesses incorporate low-income people and microenterprises into value chains, we identified three central approaches: inclusion through consumption, distribution chains, and supply chains. We rely on Boltanski and Chiapello's (1999) theoretical model to understand the assumptions and dynamics behind each of these three approaches and to grasp the moral justifications that legitimize them. In this sense, such strategies are understood here as a response by capitalism to its critics, a kind of response that allows neoliberal capitalism to absorb the less threatening demands of the progressive agenda and promote new forms of engagement in the system. We conclude that these development strategies do not address the structural asymmetries of the global productive and distributive system, since they replace an agenda for decreasing inequality and poverty eradication with one of mere poverty relief and overshadow the role of the state in the development process. The first step to move beyond this approach requires bringing collective and redistributive demands back into the center of development debate.

Why and Where to Fund Carbon Capture and Storage

This paper puts forward two claims about funding carbon capture and storage. The first claim is that there are moral justifications supporting strategic investment into CO2 storage from global and regional perspectives. One argument draws on the empirical evidence which suggests carbon capture and storage would play a significant role in a portfolio of global solutions to climate change; the other draws on Rawls’ notion of legitimate expectations and Moellendorf’s Anti-Poverty principle. The second claim is that where to pursue this strategic investment poses a morally non-trivial problem, with considerations like near-term global distributive justice and undermining legitimate expectations favouring investing in developing regions, especially in Asia, and considerations like long-term climate impacts and best uses of resources favouring investing in the relatively wealthy regions that have the best prospects for successful storage development.

When is secession legitimate?

<p>Secession claims are not sufficiently dealt with at international law. Similarly theoretical analyses of the moral justifications for secession widely differ, with little scholarly agreement on, for example, whether there is a primary right to secede, a remedial right only, or no right to secede at all. This paper reviews the scholarly debate on legal, moral and constitutional legitimacy of secession, and develops five criteria for assessing the overall legitimacy of a secession claim: (1) nationhood and claim to territory; (2) self-determination and autonomy; (3) treatment at the hands of the state; (4) viability of the proposed state ; and (5) position of the existing state. Applying these criteria to three very different but equally topical possible secession claims - Scotland from the United Kingdom, Catalonia from Spain, and Novorossiya from Ukraine - the interplay between these criteria is demonstrated.</p>

When is secession legitimate?

<p>Secession claims are not sufficiently dealt with at international law. Similarly theoretical analyses of the moral justifications for secession widely differ, with little scholarly agreement on, for example, whether there is a primary right to secede, a remedial right only, or no right to secede at all. This paper reviews the scholarly debate on legal, moral and constitutional legitimacy of secession, and develops five criteria for assessing the overall legitimacy of a secession claim: (1) nationhood and claim to territory; (2) self-determination and autonomy; (3) treatment at the hands of the state; (4) viability of the proposed state ; and (5) position of the existing state. Applying these criteria to three very different but equally topical possible secession claims - Scotland from the United Kingdom, Catalonia from Spain, and Novorossiya from Ukraine - the interplay between these criteria is demonstrated.</p>

Moral Justifications for Negative Screen Tourist Behaviour

<p><b>Screen tourism has become increasingly more popular over the last two decades, and while it has positive benefits for stakeholders and destinations, screen tourists engaging in negative tourist behaviour has become a problem at popular screen tourism destinations. However, little is known about how screen tourists justify engaging in this negative behaviour. Bandura’s Moral Disengagement theory has been used in various non-tourism and tourism contexts to examine and explain how individuals justify negative behaviours. This thesis applies Moral Disengagement theory to negative tourist behaviour in a screen tourism context, aiming to examine screen tourists’ use of moral disengagement mechanisms to justify negative on-site tourist behaviour. It further draws on previous research and literature on fandom and level of leisure involvement to provide a better understanding of how these factors might influence screen tourists’ moral justification of negative behaviour. Data was collected using a self-administered online survey, distributed to individuals who self-identified as members of either the Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones fandoms, and received 243 eligible responses. The survey measured level of fandom involvement, participants’ use of moral disengagement mechanisms in three hypothetical scenarios presenting negative screen tourism related behaviours, and responses to Bandura’s Moral Disengagement scale. </b></p> <p>Findings from this research suggest that some screen tourists morally justify engaging in negative behaviour in some contexts. This aligns with findings from previous research on moral disengagement and tourism. Furthermore, this research finds that mechanisms that are centred on disregarding/distorting the perceived harm on the victim were most frequently used. Lastly, groups were found to differ in their use of moral justification mechanisms, indicating that fandom identification, the moral alignment of the fandom object, and level of involvement influence individuals’ use of moral justification. It is also argued that (screen) tourism and fandom communities both have characteristics that facilitate moral disengagement. This knowledge can support screen tourism stakeholders in screen tourism development, and in mitigation of negative behaviours.</p>

Moral Justifications for Negative Screen Tourist Behaviour

<p><b>Screen tourism has become increasingly more popular over the last two decades, and while it has positive benefits for stakeholders and destinations, screen tourists engaging in negative tourist behaviour has become a problem at popular screen tourism destinations. However, little is known about how screen tourists justify engaging in this negative behaviour. Bandura’s Moral Disengagement theory has been used in various non-tourism and tourism contexts to examine and explain how individuals justify negative behaviours. This thesis applies Moral Disengagement theory to negative tourist behaviour in a screen tourism context, aiming to examine screen tourists’ use of moral disengagement mechanisms to justify negative on-site tourist behaviour. It further draws on previous research and literature on fandom and level of leisure involvement to provide a better understanding of how these factors might influence screen tourists’ moral justification of negative behaviour. Data was collected using a self-administered online survey, distributed to individuals who self-identified as members of either the Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones fandoms, and received 243 eligible responses. The survey measured level of fandom involvement, participants’ use of moral disengagement mechanisms in three hypothetical scenarios presenting negative screen tourism related behaviours, and responses to Bandura’s Moral Disengagement scale. </b></p> <p>Findings from this research suggest that some screen tourists morally justify engaging in negative behaviour in some contexts. This aligns with findings from previous research on moral disengagement and tourism. Furthermore, this research finds that mechanisms that are centred on disregarding/distorting the perceived harm on the victim were most frequently used. Lastly, groups were found to differ in their use of moral justification mechanisms, indicating that fandom identification, the moral alignment of the fandom object, and level of involvement influence individuals’ use of moral justification. It is also argued that (screen) tourism and fandom communities both have characteristics that facilitate moral disengagement. This knowledge can support screen tourism stakeholders in screen tourism development, and in mitigation of negative behaviours.</p>

Against Public Reason’s Alleged Self-Defeat

Mainstream political liberals hold that state coercion is legitimate only if it is justified on the grounds of reasons that all may reasonably be expected to accept. Critics argue that this public justification principle (PJP) is self-defeating, because it depends on moral justifications that not all may reasonably be expected to accept. To rebut the self-defeat objection, I elaborate on the following disjunction: one either agrees or disagrees that it is wrong to impose one’s morality on others by the coercive power of the state. Those who disagree reject PJP, they understand politics as war. Those who agree accept PJP, they understand politics as competition. Political competitors abide by PJP to avoid politics as war, by enforcing PJP on political combatants they engage in a war that is unavoidable. In both cases their exercise of political power has a justification that is reasonably acceptable to all.

Moralizing the Production and Sale of Student Papers in Uganda

Sociologists have shown that moral understandings of market exchanges can differ between historical periods and institutional settings, but they have paid less attention to how producers’ moral frameworks vary depending on their unequal positions within both markets and institutions. We use interviews and ethnographic observations to examine the vibrant market of research shops selling academic work to students around two of Uganda’s top universities. We identify three groups of researchers—Knowledge Producers, Entrepreneurs, and Educators—who construct different professional identities and moral justifications of their trade, and who orient their market action accordingly. We demonstrate that these identities and moral frameworks reflect an interplay between the institutional contexts and the social class positions that researchers occupy within this illicit market. Knowledge Producers and Entrepreneurs both experienced a sense of “fit” with their respective institutional cultures, but the former now see their work as compromising ideals of research, whereas the latter capitalize on what they view as a broken system. Educators, disadvantaged at both institutions, articulate a framework countering the dominant institutional cultures and sympathetic to underperforming students. This approach illuminates how institutional contexts and individual class positions within them influence producers’ moral frameworks, leading to differentiation of the market.