If a person sees herself as “belonging to the good side,” can she justify the violence she inflicts on the “other”?
People’s perception of themselves as the “good side” can be a mechanism used to justify violence against the “other,” but the moral, philosophical, and human dimensions of this situation must be thoroughly examined.
- Moral Dilemma and Self-Justification
The Us vs. Them Distinction: When people feel they belong to a group (“we”), they may exclude the other group (“them”), even dehumanizing them. This process is the first step in normalizing violence.
Self-Justification: The perpetrator may consider themselves morally superior, believing their actions are for a “good cause” (religion, ideology, security, etc.). For example, throughout history, wars, genocides, or political oppression have often been justified on grounds such as “self-defense” or a “noble cause.”
- Ethical Perspectives
Utilitarianism: The logic that “some harm is acceptable for the greater good” can be used to justify violence. However, this approach can ignore individual rights and justice.
Deontological Ethics (Kantianism): According to this view, acts of violence cannot be justified on any grounds if they violate universal moral principles (e.g., the prohibition of “killing”).
Virtue Ethics: A mindset that normalizes violence can detract from virtues such as compassion, justice, and empathy.
- Psychological Mechanisms
Cognitive Dissonance: People develop defense mechanisms to reduce the conflict between seeing themselves as “good” and “bad” acts like violence (e.g., “They deserve it”).
Authority and Obedience: Studies such as Stanley Milgram’s experiments demonstrate how people can submit to violence when it is legitimized by authority figures.
Group Dynamics: According to social identity theory, in intergroup conflicts, a sense of “we” can increase discrimination against the “other.”
- Historical and Social Examples
In religious, ethnic, or political conflicts, the parties often position themselves as “right” and the other side as “bad” (e.g., the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, Srebrenica).
Today, the “other” can be portrayed as an enemy and violence can be legitimized through media, politics, or social perception management.
- Can It Be Justified?
Subjectively: A person may justify violence due to their beliefs or group norms. However, this does not mean that the action is objectively moral.
From an Objective Moral Perspective: If violence violates fundamental human rights (the right to life, the prohibition of torture, etc.), it cannot be justified under any circumstances. International law is also based on this principle.
- Alternative Approaches
Empathy and Dialogue: Seeking to understand the “other” can break the cycle of violence.
Justice and Law: Conflict resolution should be based on the rule of law and human rights rather than violence.
Critical Thinking: Questioning the absolute “good/bad” distinction helps us identify manipulations.
The legitimization of violence in the name of “good” has had devastating consequences throughout human history. Morally, no act of violence can be justified by disregarding human dignity. True “goodness” lies in seeing others as human and rejecting violence. As Albert Camus said:
“Even with good intentions, those who take sides in injustice ultimately serve injustice.”
For more in-depth reading on this topic, we recommend Hannah Arendt’s “The Banality of Evil” or Jonathan Glover’s “Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century.”