Hello, although I am not a philosopher, I know and read philosophy, and I hope I can answer your question. (In addition, I am new to the forum - this is my first response - so I apologize if I deviated from the norms or if I misunderstood the conversation).
I believe that the logic behind such sentences is a utilitarian view (Philosophy of Jeremy Bentham): "a little damage" is better than "complete damage". However, even with utilitarian considerations we must consider possible consequences of specific actions. For example: Is it possible that following a statement like this that you demonstrated, a third party will see and be legitimized to cause "little damage" instead of "zero damage"? Or, is it possible that the listener will thus be able to deal better with the conscience, and this will delay his future transition to "zero harm"? On the other hand, it is possible that without sentences like these, the listener will be silenced and will not be willing to think about the subject at all, and thanks to the gradual transition, he will be able to make a big change, which is difficult to make at once.
These considerations move the discussion from philosophy to psychology and cognition. I believe that scientific articles on cognitive dissonance, intuitive morality, and autosuggestion would be useful here