In a world that claims to be based on justice and equality, we find a dangerous phenomenon creeping into the positions of individuals and societies, and even into media and politics: “Duality of Conscience” or “Selective Conscience.” This conscience is not absolute in its principles; rather, it awakens when an event aligns with its biases and sleeps when it does not align with its interests or vision of the world.
Duality of Conscience is that human feeling that appears only when the victim is from the “group we sympathize with,” or when the perpetrator is from the “group we hate,” but disappears if the roles are reversed. In other words, it is a double standard in assessing tragedies and crimes, where positions are determined based on the identity of the actor and the subject, rather than the moral principle itself.
When a person from a certain ethnic or religious group is killed, the world erupts in anger, but when a person from another group is killed, the incident is viewed with indifference or even justified.
We find some countries or individuals fiercely defending human rights when the aggressor state is a political opponent, but they justify the same violations if the perpetrator is an ally.
There are those who defend freedom of expression when it concerns their opinion but seek to suppress any opposing view under various pretexts like “national security” or “respect for sanctities.”
Corruption and dictatorship are denounced in a particular country, but overlooked in another simply because the ruling regime there aligns with the personal or ideological interests of the critics.
Humans, by nature, tend to support those who resemble them in thought or identity, often leading to a distorted view of reality. The media, for example, plays a major role in shaping selective conscience by picking which news to display, how to present it, and the language used to describe victims and perpetrators.
Major powers use selective conscience as a political weapon, employing human rights and democracy as pressure tools while turning a blind eye to violations when they serve their interests.
To overcome all this, one must ask: would my position be the same if the victim or the perpetrator were from another group? Am I judging based on principles or on identities?
Instead of relying on a single potentially biased source, one must seek different perspectives to reach a more neutral picture. A person's stance must be consistent toward moral issues, regardless of the identity of the actor or the victim.
Duality of conscience is one of the most dangerous diseases of modern societies, because it turns justice into a mere tool used according to whim, not as a steady human principle. If we want a more just and fair world, we must abandon this duality and be honest with ourselves before we judge others.
Conclusion:
Duality of conscience is one of the most dangerous diseases of modern societies, as it turns justice into a mere tool used according to whim, not as a steady human principle.
If we want a more just and fair world, we must abandon this duality and be honest with ourselves before we judge others.
True justice requires us to be consistent in our principles and to reject the double standards that destroy the foundations of morality and fairness in society.