“The loneliest people are often those who see things as they are.” —Source unknown
The danger to democracy doesn’t start with lies. It begins when people know something is false and accept it anyway. This difference matters both morally and psychologically. This essay expands on last week’s column about the challenge of finding and accepting the truth.
When Knowing Becomes Complicity
In psychology and ethics, moral injury traditionally refers to the harm experienced by individuals who violate their own moral code, often due to authority or pressure. The concept has been widely studied in military settings by researchers like Jonathan Shay and Brett Litz, who discovered that injury results not only from violence but also from betrayal of deeply held values.
That framework extends beyond the battlefield.
When individuals knowingly repeat, defend, or excuse lies by leaders — especially those that harm others — they are not simply misinformed. They are involved in moral compromise. Over time, this leads to what psychologist Albert Bandura called moral disengagement: The gradual rationalization of unethical actions through denial, justification, and shifting responsibility.
The cost isn’t abstract; it’s internal.
The Psychological Toll of Willful Blindness
Legal scholars define willful blindness as deliberately avoiding knowledge to dodge responsibility. Psychologically, it is harmful. Research in behavioral ethics shows that suppressing known truths raises anxiety, cynicism, and aggression. People lose trust not only in institutions but also in themselves. What often follows is projection: “Everyone lies.” “Truth is subjective.” “Nothing matters.”
This isn’t a strength; it’s moral fatigue.
Civic Moral Injury
When moral injury happens on a large scale, it becomes a societal issue. Societies that accept lying as normal face increasing distrust, weakening social bonds, and decay of institutions. Political scientist Vaclav Havel described life under authoritarianism as living “within a lie,” in which the greatest damage is not to the government but to the human spirit.
Journalists see this erosion firsthand: Anger, nihilism, and the loss of good faith. These are signs of unresolved moral injury, not confidence.
Journalism’s Ethical Burden
Journalists can’t heal moral injury on their own, but we are usually the first to recognize it.
Our duty is not just to expose lies but also to record the price of accepting them, demonstrating that avoiding the truth does not shield people from pain; it delays and intensifies it.
Remaining silent when faced with known lies isn’t neutrality; it’s involvement.
As this year comes to a close, journalists and journalism students should clearly understand: Truth is not just a professional standard; it’s a moral one.
Moral injury doesn’t always involve pulling the trigger. Sometimes, it arises from being close enough to power to see the truth and choosing comfort over conscience.