The Lucifer Effect

[apepi]

Well, they were put into a position to do bad things. If you put someone into a position to do good things, some of them will do good things.

[Shaqur]

My friends call me good most of the time but they don't know what I'm able to do.
Every time I'm alone and see dog , I try to catch it.
I always carry rope with myself. So when its bigger dog, I try to tie him, its easily to do, I just knock him with a rock then tie him and pull him all the way into forest.
Then I proceed to cut all of his legs then I wait for him to wake up. I just enjoy watching him suffering and dieing.
I'm good person but I really like to watch dog's suffer.

[teddytous]

Well what often enough works, whats bad are the things you wouldnt want someone else to do to you.

Remove the chance of the other party doing it to you, and that how you get into situations like the Dr. Zimbardo experiments.

I wouldn't like someone doing this to me, so I won't do it to them.
I don't want someone doing this to me, I won't do it to them.

These are two subtle but important differences in the way people think. One is a draw on an abstract, aka morality to determine weather or not an action is viable. The other is a proactive reasoning based on possible negative consequences.

Taught by people in two very different ways.

People can be taught abstract morality only through discussion and gaining more insight into the world around them. Understanding something is wrong regardless of the consequences to you(you being part of your society aswell) is alot harder to teach then simple proactive aversion of negative consequence.

People are taught proactive avoidance of consequences through simple and very common disciplinary techniques. You do something wrong, you lose something. You stay out too late? Your grounded. Steal, get your hands slapped. Kill someone, goto jail. The problem with this mindset is when you remove that negative consequence, or the enforcement of said consequence, isn't that people think that they can get away with it, but that it is actually ok because there is no associated negative consequence.

Their are deeper level of proactive aversion of consequences, take stealing from a corner store.
Level 1: Getting caught = Cops called, possible detainment, parents finding out, whatever consequences they give you.
Level 2: Store owner based negative consequences that come back to me = If I(and others) do this to him, he may go out of business because of lost profits, and I'd lose the store I like to goto
Level 3: Placement based reasoning = Store owner is a person, I am a person. If someone steals from him he could go out of business/lose profits. I am a person who has a job and works for my money, I wouldn't want those negative consequence on me, so I won't do it to him, because really he's a person just like me.

All of these are directly/indirectly about avoiding the consequences to yourself(yourself as part of society, yourself as someone doing it back to you).

Abstract morality thats taught isn't about consequences, but rather "right vs wrong". I'm not talking bout teaching of some book... rather that something is (whatever woud you want to use, bad, immoral, wrong, black) not because it will in any way affect you, or someone like you, but because of the very nature of the act itself.

Stealing is wrong because I don't want to be stole from! Because I don't want to goto jail! Because I don't want to upset my parents!
Stealing is wrong because I wouldn't want someone to do it to me - regardless of weather they ever will, regardless of anything that happens after the action for that matter - or because of how it affects that person, not in a way that connects back to me in any way.

I'm not saying proactive aversion of negative consequentness doesn't have a place in parenting or disciplinary techniques, but the problem is to many people raised and using this and only this to guide their moral compass.

[Elenion]

No one is inherently good or evil, black and white.
Different situations bring out different side of your consciousness. Based on their knowledge, experience, health, environments and how left and right side brains interact to make decisions; not because a switch was flipped.

[Catta]

Das Experiment anyone?

[Deleted]

My friends call me good most of the time but they don't know what I'm able to do.
Every time I'm alone and see dog , I try to catch it.
I always carry rope with myself. So when its bigger dog, I try to tie him, its easily to do, I just knock him with a rock then tie him and pull him all the way into forest.
Then I proceed to cut all of his legs then I wait for him to wake up. I just enjoy watching him suffering and dieing.
I'm good person but I really like to watch dog's suffer.

Attention seeking much?

[Raphtheone]

I'm a big fan of the Stanford experiment. It's far from enough to make a conclusive analysis of, given how short the experiment was, and the conflicting data (both "off" and "on" the field). There are other similar experiments made (though different settings) that imply the same as the outcome of the Stanford experiment, and I agree with Zimbardo's perspective that Abu Ghraib was a case of apples (normal, though) put in a bad basket, having, given my interest in human psyche, both seen documentaries and read up on the related subjects.

Staying within the boundaries of the forum rules, my true perspective can't properly be described. Having said that, there are no true good or evils, but as others already pointed out, shades of gray, or perspectives as I like to call it. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply ignorant. We have less free will than some people give us credit. Although the debate of free will might be considered completely off topic, it is related. Every day we do things because we can get away with it. You crank up the seriousness of the situation-meter, and so are the things we try to get away with. In everyday life we might simply download a song off the internet, take a pen from work, or tell a white lie to get out of a social event, all morally incorrect. Yet we do it anyway. We do it because we can get away with it, and we have more to gain from it (or less to lose, depending on perspective).

But in a different setting, like in a prison with no rules, things escalate to where you either take the shit, or hand it out. If you consider yourself a moral and good person, you'll without a doubt be on the receiving end, even if you're on the "winning team". The guard that treat the inmates as fellow human beings will be subject to social and verbal torment from the other guards. A real life example of this would be in the 50's USA (or whenever it was), where if you, put bluntly, told whites that blacks are humans too, you were branded a "N*-lover" (by normal people), and treated as an outcast.

I think stress is a factor. In a stressful situation we might not always handle ourselves morally the way we would without the stress. I think it's a coping mechanism. We're also social creatures that need a hierarchy. Where there is none, we create one. Like in a place without rules (a bad prison), rules that can be ignored (unsupervised workplace), rules that reward questionable actions (business), or where we can create our own rules. We don't lose our morality, merely putting it aside for what we consider a greater benefit, whatever it might be.

There are plenty of moral dilemmas that paint this picture. They're never a choice in a normal situation, but there's always some form of stress-factor involved. It's because morality isn't water-proof, or a luxury you can always afford. Sometimes you have to put it aside for the "greater good", or trade the "greater good" to stay true to your own morality, which might hurt more people than it'd help. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. There is no right or wrong answer, no good or evil. Only different values, different perspectives. Putting your morality aside doesn't make you a bad person, just a normal one.

[Letmesleep]

I believe most of the evil in the world comes down to selfishness. When you have the mentality that your wants and needs are more important than other people's wants and needs, you feel more free to step on them.

[starlord]

i guess it depends on how strong their morals are. your average person is easily influenced by his surroundings though.

[Adio]

What happened at Abu Ghraib was disgusting, and they weren't 'good apples put in a bad basket'... those animals were bad apples put in a bad basket at the very least. There were plenty of guards at Abu Ghraib that didn't abuse the prisoners, those that abused them deserve their punishments and far more.

The torturing all happened at night, with the same set of guards, when the supervising officer was not there. And the guards on the night shift were reservist. I'm not defending them, just giving a little more context. I'm wondering what would happen if it they were on the day shift, with the supervising officers around. And if a different group of guards were in the night shift.

Dr. Zimbardo did bring up the Milgram experiment too, on why some people (most) would willing hurt people if giving the order. I believe it was 65% of the participant "shocked" the other guy with 450 volts. That of course falls into "I was just following orders". And he brought up examples of the bystander effect, on how most people won’t help someone if there are a lot of people around, thinking that someone else will help. Or I don’t have time, someone else will take care of the issue. Whereas if that person was the only one around, they would stop to help that person in need. While not helping isn't necessary evil, but it is avoiding doing good.