Black and White Thinking and the Justification of Violence
We are constantly fed and often contribute to the justification of violence.
Rigid belief systems suggest that the cycle of violence is locked in perpetuity by human nature:
“She had to retaliate. He was saying horrible things about her.”
“They had to send a missile. They were getting too close to bombing us first.”
“He was protecting himself. There was no other way.”
I believe many people commenting on war and violence are contributing to the perpetuation of this cycle by spending so much energy proving who is due the right to violent choices.
How beliefs shape behavior
Within psychology, there is a concept that when we look through a certain filter, a belief, there is a natural order of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that follows.
When violence is justified, it tends to create a pattern like this:
Belief: Humans are broken, violent people who will and maybe even deserve to take an eye for an eye.
Thoughts: “You cannot expect peace, and you shouldn’t.” Violence is a self-perpetuating cycle.
Feelings: Futility. Defeat.
Behaviors: Inevitable violence. Justified retaliation.
This is part of how beliefs shape behavior. What we assume to be true about people affects what we expect, what we feel, and what we are willing to excuse.
If we believe violence is inevitable, we will stop imagining another way.
An alternative belief
I’d like to offer an alternative belief that I personally hold and know many people do not agree with:
Alternative belief: Humans are good inside, AND retaliation is an instinctual protective response to being wounded if people do not have the skills to process pain and respond peacefully.
That belief leads somewhere different:
Thoughts: “There is no way out of this pattern until one side exercises restraint or leaders on both sides find a new solution.”
Feelings: Resolve. Hope. Generativity.
Behaviors: Self-regulation by responsible parties. Conflict resolution.
If there is any part of you that believes violence is not inevitable, then we move forward by self-regulating the protective instinct to seek or justify revenge through violence.
That does not mean denying harm. It does not mean pretending people are not capable of cruelty. It means refusing the conclusion that harm must always be answered with more harm.
Why do we label people as good or bad?
When we use black and white thinking to label people as good or bad, we become more likely to excuse verbal or physical violence when we have already placed someone in the “good” category.
This is how us vs. them thinking takes hold.
Through tribalism, we create a false sense of safety and security by justifying dominance for people like ourselves. With moral absolutism, the more violence is justified in the name of something we consider right, the more psychological rigidity grows. Eventually, behaviors we once called wrong become acceptable so long as they are done by “us” and not to us.
This is part of why dehumanization becomes so dangerous. It often starts in language long before it becomes easier to ignore in action.
Before physical violence is tolerated, people are often first flattened into categories. They stop being human beings with complexity and become symbols of threat, blame, evil, or guilt. Once that happens, empathy weakens. Restraint weakens. Moral certainty grows louder than curiosity.
A polarized world is not healed by moral certainty
The vicious cycle we are living in exacerbates dehumanization and extremism and creates a more polarized world.
But the cycle is escapable.
Our belief systems contribute to either speeding it up or slowing it down. If we want a different future, it starts with those of us witnessing and reporting on violent acts. We can refrain from justification. We can call for restraint. We can hold compassion for the wounded. We can insist on conflict resolution without collapsing into simplistic categories of good and bad.
When we lose all shock or curiosity that one violent act preceded and followed another because we call it predictable or justified, we become more polarized and more desensitized.
The cost of moral certainty is often our humanity.
Holding complexity is part of peacemaking
Holding complexity in relationships, communities, and public life is not a weakness. It is one of the clearest alternatives to black-and-white thinking.
Two things can be true at once: people can cause profound harm, and people can still be more than the worst thing they have done. Pain can be real, and retaliation can still deepen the wound. Protection may be necessary, and so is the work of resisting dehumanization.
This is the harder path. It asks more of us than choosing sides and defending them at all costs.
But if peace is possible at all, it will require more than proving who is right. It will require the courage to interrupt the cycle.
If these ideas resonate with you, Kelsey explores this kind of complexity more deeply in The And Way: Assertive Peacemaking in a Divided World, including how we move beyond us vs. them thinking, loosen rigid belief systems, and make room for conflict resolution without losing our humanity. Learn more about the book here.
More to Read:
Listen to a Recent Podcast:
I recently joined Elliot Sands on the Live Faith First Podcast, where we discussed this topic in more depth and explored the beliefs that shape how we respond to conflict.
