Moral Slippage: How Good People Cross Ethical Lines
We like to think of morality as fixed, stable across time and consistent across people. We draw lines between right and wrong, and we expect ourselves and others to stay within those bounds. But human psychology rarely operates in absolutes. Instead, people often slide gradually into unethical behaviour, sometimes without even realising it. This phenomenon when individuals or groups slowly drift away from their moral compass is known as moral slippage.
Moral slippage can affect anyone, from corporate leaders to ordinary citizens. It helps explain how good people commit bad acts, how organisations end up mired in scandal, and how society at large becomes desensitised to injustice. Understanding the psychology behind moral slippage is vital, not only to protect ourselves from ethical pitfalls but also to create systems that encourage moral clarity and accountability.
What Is Moral Slippage?
At its core, moral slippage refers to the incremental erosion of ethical standards over time. Rather than a sudden leap into wrongdoing, moral slippage typically involves a gradual, often rationalised process, where each unethical step seems only slightly worse than the last. As the transgressions mount, individuals may find themselves far removed from their original moral stance, having crossed lines they once considered inviolable.
This concept overlaps with terms like ethical fading, moral disengagement, and the slippery slope effect, but moral slippage specifically emphasises the slow, progressive nature of ethical decline.
Why Moral Slippage Happens: The Psychology Behind It
Several psychological mechanisms help explain how moral slippage occurs.
1. Moral Disengagement
Proposed by psychologist Albert Bandura, moral disengagement refers to the cognitive processes by which people justify unethical behaviour, allowing themselves to act in ways that violate their personal moral code without feeling distress (Bandura, 1999). Mechanisms include:
Moral justification: Framing harmful acts as serving a noble purpose ("It’s for the greater good").
Euphemistic labelling: Using sanitised language to obscure wrongdoing (e.g., “collateral damage” instead of civilian deaths).
Advantageous comparison: Comparing one’s actions to worse behaviours to minimise guilt.
Diffusion of responsibility: Spreading accountability across a group ("Everyone else did it too").
Dehumanisation: Viewing victims as less than human, making it easier to harm them.
2. The Slippery Slope Effect
This principle suggests that small ethical compromises make larger violations more likely (Welsh et al., 2015). When someone commits a minor unethical act, it lowers their internal resistance to future transgressions. They may also feel a need to stay consistent with their past actions, especially if they have already justified them.
3. Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Justification
Humans have a deep need to see themselves as moral beings. When our actions contradict our values, we experience cognitive dissonance (a psychological discomfort). To reduce this tension, we often adjust our beliefs to align with our behaviour, rather than the other way around. Over time, these mental justifications can compound, allowing moral boundaries to shift almost imperceptibly (Festinger, 1957; Tavris & Aronson, 2007).
4. Group Norms and Social Influence
People are deeply influenced by the behaviour of those around them. If unethical actions are normalised within a group, individuals are less likely to question them. The famous Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardo, 1971) and Milgram’s obedience studies (1963) both highlight how social dynamics can override individual morality.
Real-World Examples of Moral Slippage
Corporate Scandals
One of the clearest illustrations of moral slippage occurs in the corporate world. The Enron scandal, for instance, didn’t begin with massive fraud. It started with small accounting tricks that executives justified to meet earnings expectations. Over time, these tricks escalated, culminating in one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history (Healy & Palepu, 2003).
Similarly, in the Volkswagen emissions scandal, engineers initially tampered with emissions software to meet regulations during testing. What began as a workaround spiralled into a massive international fraud, affecting millions of vehicles and costing the company billions.
War Crimes and Military Behaviour
In warfare, moral slippage can lead soldiers to commit atrocities, particularly when aggression is sanctioned or orders are ambiguous. The My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War is a chilling example where U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of unarmed civilians, actions made possible by groupthink, dehumanisation, and a lack of accountability (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).
Online Harassment and Social Media
The digital space has enabled a new form of moral slippage. Online anonymity can erode empathy, allowing users to engage in behaviour they’d never condone offline; bullying, doxxing, or spreading misinformation. Incremental shifts in tone and behaviour, coupled with echo chambers, often lead individuals into more extreme ethical territory.
Consequences of Moral Slippage
The costs of moral slippage are substantial, both for individuals and society.
Personal Consequences: People who slip ethically often experience guilt, anxiety, and a loss of self-respect. If discovered, they may face reputational damage, legal consequences, or career derailment.
Organisational Impact: Once moral standards decline, trust deteriorates. Toxic cultures emerge, whistleblowers are silenced, and long-term damage outweighs short-term gains.
Social Harm: When entire communities or governments undergo moral slippage, injustice becomes institutionalised. Marginalised groups suffer, and norms shift toward greater acceptance of corruption, discrimination, or violence.
Preventing Moral Slippage: Individual and Collective Strategies
If moral slippage is gradual, it can also be prevented through deliberate strategies.
1. Cultivating Moral Awareness
People are less likely to slip when they recognise ethical dilemmas early. Ethical training programs, mindfulness, and ethical reflection can help individuals spot the warning signs of slippage before it's too late.
2. Fostering a Speak-Up Culture
Organisations benefit from encouraging dissent and empowering employees to raise ethical concerns without fear. Psychological safety a term coined by Amy Edmondson enables people to challenge questionable practices and keep ethical boundaries intact.
3. Holding Regular Accountability Checks
Leaders and institutions should implement systems of transparent oversight. This might include ethics audits, external evaluations, or rotating leadership to avoid entrenched power.
4. Strengthening Moral Identity
Research shows that people with a strong moral identity who see being ethical as central to their sense of self, are more resistant to moral disengagement (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Promoting values-based education and ethical leadership can reinforce this identity.
5. Emphasising Long-Term Thinking
Short-term gains often drive unethical decisions. Encouraging a long-term perspective focused on integrity, trust, and sustainability can reduce the temptation to cut corners.
Simply Put
Moral slippage reminds us that ethical integrity isn’t a one-time decision it’s a habit, a discipline, and a constant recalibration. Even the most well-intentioned individuals can fall prey to gradual ethical erosion when vigilance fades and rationalisations take over. By understanding the psychological processes that underlie moral slippage, we can better equip ourselves and our communities to uphold values that endure under pressure.
In an increasingly complex world, moral clarity is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.
