I think you need to dig a bit deeper than the rationalizations people give for their actions.
There is a difference between a person who genuinely considers what they are doing to be OK, and people who are actually rationlizing things they know deep down to be wrong.
I think your implicit assumption that anyone might have acted like she did, in her position, is wrong. Both a person's innate (not necessarily genetic) moral goodness, and the circumstances a person finds themselves in, play a role in how they are act.
In trying to avoid one kind of simplistic viewpoint, I think you are falling for the opposite one.
I look at her and I think "I would never do anything like that!"
But is that really true or am I just rationalising with the benefit of hindsight?
There was an article on HN about a man running a family business who started defrauding money. It needed the cooperation of other people. Rather than creating any elaborate lies he simply told them, and asked them for help. (I can't remember any more about it, which is making search tricky!). But they all went along. He was a nice guy, and they were helping him, and no-one was really being hurt. Except they were all committing serious criminal offences.
If you go deep enough, some chemical reactions managed her thoughts and behaviors, and negotiated your reaction, as well.
At some point people have to be held accountable and called names like evil. The idea that she can talk herself into believing otherwise is a travesty, mostly because it allowed it to continue.
I think the word evil was invented to describe people exactly like this woman.
I don't think other folk are giving you enough credit here. It's much to easy to think we would never do something without critical thought.
This reminds me a lot of espionage. No one sets out to betray their country, but by gradually making more and more compromises you go from being Uncle Sam to Aldrich Ames.
There is a difference between a person who genuinely considers what they are doing to be OK, and people who are actually rationlizing things they know deep down to be wrong.
I think your implicit assumption that anyone might have acted like she did, in her position, is wrong. Both a person's innate (not necessarily genetic) moral goodness, and the circumstances a person finds themselves in, play a role in how they are act.
In trying to avoid one kind of simplistic viewpoint, I think you are falling for the opposite one.