Wikipedia interprets cruelty as “a moral and psychological personality trait, which manifests itself in an inhuman, rude, offensive attitude towards other living beings, causing them pain and encroachment on their lives. It is also believed that this is a socio-psychological phenomenon, expressed in receiving pleasure from deliberate infliction of suffering on a living being in a way that is unacceptable in this culture."
Can't be justified
Everything is clear and simple here. Well, who can justify the inhuman, rude and offensive attitude towards other living beings, especially the pleasure of deliberately inflicting suffering on a living being? Is that only a person with a sick mentality, but the same cruel person.
Although, it happens, they justify. And they seem to be quite normal people, and even those who consider themselves educated and cultured. For example, not even cruelty, but an inhuman crime - political repression, or rather the destruction of millions of innocent people. Some insist that the repressed were really to blame for what they were accused of, others argue that the time was like that and it was simply impossible to act differently. Some even agree to the point that otherwise we would not have won in the Second World War. Although the absurdity of such excuses is quite obvious.
This is the highest degree of cynicism. On the other hand, there is a condescending attitude towards such manifestations of cruelty as domestic violence, harassment, cruelty to animals and much more. Which is also a kind of excuse for cruelty. There are still many cruelties between them, which are also justified in one way or another.
But all this, of course, cannot be called normal. And such excuses are subjected to impartial criticism, rejected by sane and honest people.
Can't be justified
However, cruelty is not an unambiguous phenomenon. Until now, we have been talking about cruelty as a phenomenon that is expressed in getting pleasure from causing suffering to someone. But a soldier who kills his enemy, or an executioner who puts a criminal to death, or a veterinarian who puts a sick animal to sleep, do they also enjoy this? I think not. Maybe they even do it against their will, or in general with disgust. Therefore, this is already another cruelty that manifests itself out of necessity. After all, if the soldier does not kill his enemy, then the enemy will kill the soldier himself, if the executioner does not take the life of the criminal, then the court decision will not be carried out, if the veterinarian does not euthanize the animal, then it will suffer. And, therefore, can a soldier, an executioner or a veterinarian be blamed for this cruelty. Definitely not. Or, in other words, such cruelty is justified.
To some extent, you can justify the cruelty shown in a state of passion. Here a man finds his wife in the arms of another. At this moment he is seized by such excitement that he ceases to control himself and in this state inflicts severe injuries on his wife or even kills her. Can we judge him for this in the same way we judge a rapist or a sadist? Of course not. After all, a person simply did not control himself. Even the criminal code recognizes this condition as a mitigating circumstance. So we justify such cruelty.
The same applies to cruelty shown through negligence, by mistake, accident, etc.
So it is not always the justification of cruelty is an asocial phenomenon and may well have a right to exist.