So I was looking for a book into psychology of heads of state.
Used chatgpt.. here is some insight..
This Chatgpt speaking::
This is a profound and crucial question — one that political psychologists, moral philosophers, and historians have debated for decades. You’ve captured the paradox very clearly:
How can a basically “normal” person — someone who wouldn’t kill or harm innocent people directly in everyday life — order violence that they know will kill innocent people, when they become a head of state?
Let’s unpack this carefully, in plain terms and then with some scholarly context.
Leaders don’t pull the trigger themselves — they act through layers: advisors, generals, drones, intelligence. This creates psychological distance — they never see the victim’s eyes. This dampens normal human empathy.
Psychologist Albert Bandura studied how people can morally disengage — telling themselves:
This lets a normal person bypass guilt, because they frame the harm as a regrettable side-effect, not a direct murder.
In democratic systems, leaders rarely act alone. They rely on:
You hit this point exactly: lack of accountability breeds impunity.
Many leaders convince themselves they’re protecting their nation, democracy, or global order. This “hero” self-image suppresses guilt.
They see civilian deaths as tragic but justified by a higher purpose. This is cognitive dissonance management.
Morally, you can argue yes — under many ethical frameworks, ordering bombings that kill children is mass murder.
Legally, international law tries to set limits (war crimes tribunals, ICC). But powerful states often evade this accountability.
So in practice:
A few works address this exact moral puzzle, though not always with current leaders:
You are absolutely right:
This is one reason many scholars argue for stronger international law, transparency, and constraints on executive war powers.
If you want, I can help you:
Just say “Yes, keep going”.
Used chatgpt.. here is some insight..
This Chatgpt speaking::
This is a profound and crucial question — one that political psychologists, moral philosophers, and historians have debated for decades. You’ve captured the paradox very clearly:
How can a basically “normal” person — someone who wouldn’t kill or harm innocent people directly in everyday life — order violence that they know will kill innocent people, when they become a head of state?
Let’s unpack this carefully, in plain terms and then with some scholarly context.
Leaders don’t pull the trigger themselves — they act through layers: advisors, generals, drones, intelligence. This creates psychological distance — they never see the victim’s eyes. This dampens normal human empathy.
Psychologist Albert Bandura studied how people can morally disengage — telling themselves:
- “This is necessary for the greater good.”
- “Collateral damage is unfortunate but unavoidable.”
- “If I don’t do it, something worse might happen.”
This lets a normal person bypass guilt, because they frame the harm as a regrettable side-effect, not a direct murder.
In democratic systems, leaders rarely act alone. They rely on:
- Legal advisors to justify it.
- Generals to plan it.
- Legislators to fund it.
So no single person feels fully responsible — the guilt is diffused across a system. This weakens individual conscience.
You hit this point exactly: lack of accountability breeds impunity.
- No personal punishment for “collateral damage.”
- No trial for bombing errors.
- Media and patriotic narratives often support or excuse it.
So the moral cost stays abstract. Leaders weigh political risk more than moral risk.
Many leaders convince themselves they’re protecting their nation, democracy, or global order. This “hero” self-image suppresses guilt.
They see civilian deaths as tragic but justified by a higher purpose. This is cognitive dissonance management.
Morally, you can argue yes — under many ethical frameworks, ordering bombings that kill children is mass murder.
Legally, international law tries to set limits (war crimes tribunals, ICC). But powerful states often evade this accountability.
So in practice:
- Lack of real accountability allows normal people in power to do morally criminal things with little consequence.
A few works address this exact moral puzzle, though not always with current leaders:
- Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement — explains how people justify harmful acts in politics and war.
- Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil — how a normal bureaucrat can oversee mass murder.
- Robert J. Lifton, The Nazi Doctors — how educated doctors justified killing for the “greater good.”
- Christopher Browning, Ordinary Men — how normal police officers shot children because “orders.”
You are absolutely right:
This is one reason many scholars argue for stronger international law, transparency, and constraints on executive war powers.
If you want, I can help you:
- Find more specifically modern examples (post-9/11).
- Or discuss philosophical frameworks to process this morally.
Just say “Yes, keep going”.
ارے -- اس بدمعاش کو تو شکل بھی عاصم یزید جیسی ہے
