| BookTalk.org News |
| • If you are having trouble with logging into your account or making posts please know that we are working to resolve this issue. Please delete your temporary Internet files and cookies (at least those for our site) and stay tuned to see if that resolves the issue. If not our web designer believes he can find the code that is causing the issue. |
| Show us where you live! |
 |
| Donate & Support BookTalk.org |
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
•
See who supports us
|
|
| Author |
Message |
seeker 
I can enter The Chamber
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Gender: 
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: Chapter 11: The SPE: Ethics and Extensions
|
 |
|
One of the things that strikes me here is that the critical factor in the abusive situation seems to be the differential in the level of power, rather than the absolute degree of power of either party (abuser or victim). It raises a question in my mind as to whether any differential in power between individuals is a situation ripe for abuse. The follow-on question is whether it is possible to construct social organizations within which no individual has power over another. Given that students of animal behavior and of the evolutionary development of societies generally find the power hierarchy to be the root and enabling factor in the formation of culture, I find the prospect unlikely. However, if history proves anything it is that the future is unpredictable and that creativity is unlimited.
The second observation I have of the SPE and subsequent similar experiments is how sensitive humans beings are to even subtle power differentials. These experiments were very limited in time, circumstances, and amount of power held by potential abusers. Yet even sharply circumscribed and well-defined role-playing situations were capable of eliciting extreme emotional reactions from the less-powerful subjects. Given such hyper-sensitivity, observations by Arendt about how quickly peaceful citizens, with no overt coercion, adapted to Nazi philosophies, make more sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender: 
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: Re: Chapter 11: The SPE: Ethics and Extensions
|
|
|
| seeker wrote: |
| It raises a question in my mind as to whether any differential in power between individuals is a situation ripe for abuse. |
If by "ripe for abuse" you mean "capable of being abused", then I'd say, yes, any differential in power (and I think we should recognize that power is, in this sense, a metaphor for different roles played in a social relationship, and reinforced by the use of certain tools -- ie. cages, guns, uniforms, etc.) -- ahem, any differential in power inherently makes misuse possible. But that doesn't necessarily imply that power inevitably leads to misuse, or even that it suggests abuse. It may fall outside the perview of the book to contrast the Stanford experiments to situations in which power differentials have failed to result in abuse, but I think such a contrast would be useful for situating these instances in the broader context of human phenomena.
| Quote: |
| The follow-on question is whether it is possible to construct social organizations within which no individual has power over another. |
That probably seems to most modern people to be the obvious next question. But there's another alternative, one that would have had some appeal to thinkers prior to, say, the 17th century. That is, is it possible to construct social organizations in which person's of different rank or power interact harmoniously and to their mutual benefit?
Of course, many of us would tend to look on such a question with a kind of smiling contempt. "If that were possible, surely they would have done it, and we never would have needed to revolutionize political science with the notions of equality and liberty." But the fact of the matter is, that the modern age has seen social violence surpass viral epidemic and natural disaster as the most worrisome agents of sudden mass death. Despite or best intentions, we have found human society incredibly resistent to attempts to peacefully level out power differentials.
| Quote: |
| However, if history proves anything it is that the future is unpredictable and that creativity is unlimited. |
The future is unpredictable, yes, but I'm not so sure about the limits of creativity. I'm currently reading "The Man Who Saw Through Time", Loren Eiseley's panegyric to Francis Bacon, and while Eiseley is able to wax rhapsodic about the immense humanity of Bacon's view of the potential of science, his more realistic perspective on how Bacon's progeny have realized that potential seems to point to a different conclusion. It may be that our creativity with regards to science's promise is even more limited than that of Bacon; in practice, science seems no better equipped than any other discipline to make us better people, and it has, on more than one occasion, invited us to be significantly worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JulianTheApostate
Sophomore
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 289
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:25 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| I just wonder whether or not the term "evil" really has any place in a book that doesn't dirty its hands with either philosophy or religion. Is there a place in psychology as a scientific discipline for a concept like evil? How does psychology really deal with evil? Or is evil, in this case, being used as a shorthand for a set of behaviors that Zimbardo can deal with in a psychological framework, whle simultaneously excluding anything that he can't? |
As a psychologist, Zimbardo studies human behavior, and one prominent aspect of human behavior is that people are sometimes incredibly nasty to each other. The word "evil" is a reasonable, though emotionally laden, way to characterize that nastiness.
In any case, even though the book's title is The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil and Zimbardo defines "evil" in the first chapter, the remainder of the book doesn't mention "evil" that often.
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| I just wonder whether or not the conclusions he draws are necessarily applicable to the question of evil as it's usually understood, or if we're to understand those conclusions as applicable to another set of specifically psychological questions. |
What do you mean by "as it's usually understood"? The actions that I'd classify as evil fit Zimbardo's definition rather well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadArchitect
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
Posts: 2609
Gender:
Location: decentralized
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:04 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| JulianTheApostate wrote: |
| What do you mean by "as it's usually understood"? |
Well, specifically I have the moral connotations in mind. People don't usually use the term evil simply to group a set of actions into one category. By using the term, they usually intend to convey a moral judgment, and I'm not sure that there's room within a strict psychological discipline for that sort of judgment -- just as there's no much room to make moral evaluations from the perspective of chemistry or biology. But then, I could be wrong. Maybe psychology as a field is somehow different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JulianTheApostate
Sophomore
Joined: 23 Jul 2005
Posts: 289
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:46 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| MadArchitect wrote: |
| JulianTheApostate wrote: |
| What do you mean by "as it's usually understood"? |
Well, specifically I have the moral connotations in mind. People don't usually use the term evil simply to group a set of actions into one category. |
However, Zimbardo's moral beliefs clearly shaped his definition of evil. Zimbardo probably started with specific actions that he considered evil: the Holocaust, the Rwanda genocide, etc., and defined a category that encompassed them all. He didn't take something arbitrary, like obsessive hand-washing, and classify it as evil.
It's true that Zimbardo's definition is more abstract than the specific examples that inspired it. That's to be expected, since most intellectual discourse, especially in fields like psychology and philosophy, involves some level of abstraction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1438
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:31 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| Zimbardo: "Evil consists in intentionally behaving in ways that harm, abuse, demean, dehumanise, or destroy innocent others - or using one's authority and systemic power to encourage or permit others to do so on your behalf, In short, it is "knowing better but doing worse." |
Evil acts are intentional assaults upon innocents: the evildoer knows what he is doing and wants to do it to someone who does not deserve it. Essentially, it is a purposeful delivery of unjust suffering. But does the evildoer think his victim to be innocent? What if the evildoer sees his terrible deed as necessary and his target as really deserving? The victims of the Holocaust, in many NAZI minds, were deserving of their fate: eliminating the world of Jews, Bolsheviks, Homosexuals, Cripples, and other Degenerates was an act of Justice...precisely the Just deed, and their terrifying acts were protecting everything beautiful and noble about the world. The Jews were evil and the final solution was how to eliminate the world of their evil influence.
I don't know if evil can be easily translated apart from the religious context from which it developed. In a purely psychological context it seems to capture an event which cannot be tolerated: deeds which are never appropriate and never justified. But the religious term evil refers to something that offends not simply human values, but is an offense to the very source and foundation of all creation: it is something by which God divides who is welcome in the heavenly kingdom and who is kept out. Still, it really is a complex of the term in Judaeo-Christian theology and biblical studies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seeker
I can enter The Chamber
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Gender:
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
DH wrote:
| Quote: |
| But does the evildoer think his victim to be innocent? What if the evildoer sees his terrible deed as necessary and his target as really deserving? |
Is the act less evil if the evildoer believes what he/she is doing is good and right (as the 9/11 terrorists presumably did)? I would say no, but then what of the evildoer him/herself?
DH wrote:
| Quote: |
| I don't know if evil can be easily translated apart from the religious context from which it developed. |
Judging by our continuing debate, we certainly seem to be stuggling with this concept. So, here is a question to this point. Which of the following best describes how we each see "evil?"
a. An idea defined by God.
b. An idea defined by the human mind.
c. An idea that exists independently of any intelligence.
d. Other (please specify). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Pessimistic
Assistant Professor
Silver Contributor
Joined: 16 Jun 2004
Posts: 3449
Gender:
Location: NJ - www.myspace.com/mrpessimistic
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I do not think that nitpicking evil into a religious context, whether it evolved there or not, is conducive to discussing it in the context Zimbardo uses. Lets agree that evil is a term that can mean something other than the religious meaning. For instance, the definition Zimbardo gives.
I also think we can and should agree that there are no totally "innocent others" at all...but each situation may have an innocent and a guilty party. Take the example of killing Hitler I brought up elsewhere. Hitler is by many instances, evil or guilty of many acts. If he were murdered by someone trying to steal his wallet and this person was ignorant of his complicity in said acts, he is the innocent in this situation and the murderer the guilty party.
Mr. P. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dissident Heart
Embodiment of Reason
Bronze Contributor
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 1438
Gender:
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:54 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| seeker: Is the act less evil if the evildoer believes what he/she is doing is good and right (as the 9/11 terrorists presumably did)? I would say no, but then what of the evildoer him/herself? |
According to Zimbardo's definition, evil is an intentional harming of innocents while knowing it is the wrong thing to do. This requires the evildoer to accept the innocence of his victims and know what he is doing is wrong...not wrong tactically or strategically, but morally wrong. So, in answer to your question (per Zimbardo) no, if the purveyor of violence sees his deed as just and his victim as guilty- then it is not an evil deed. It may be evil to any bystander, and especially so to the victim, but if the deliverer of the deed sees it as good, then it is not evil.
| Quote: |
seeker: Which of the following best describes how we each see "evil?"
a. An idea defined by God.
b. An idea defined by the human mind.
c. An idea that exists independently of any intelligence.
d. Other (please specify). |
If we choose a. An idea defined by God, then we need to decide which God and where can we find the definition. If we choose the Biblical God we discover a complex relationship between God and good and evil. If we line up verses and count the times God affirms the good and rejects what is evil, we see that God has identified evil as that which impedes his plans for humanity. Still, we can find verses that describe God as the source and origin of evil. And, we can identify behavior from God that we could very easily label evil. (Unless we utilize Zimbardo's definition, in which case God's victims always deserve their fate and are not innocent.) And we find conflict in the text where God demands that humans be righteous, act justly, show mercy, offer forgiveness...as well as God demanding terrible deeds commited in his name. The term evil arises out of this complicated narrative: if we take Genesis from Revelation as a whole we see that evil starts with God, and is finished with God...and in between it serves as a volatile marker for righteous behvaior and setting boundaries against those deserving of the worst forms of wrath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aubrey.Alexis
Getting comfortable
Joined: 06 Nov 2007
Posts: 8
Gender: 
Location: Chicago
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: Evil in the World
|
|
|
I think the author probably takes some liberties with how clear and precise he must be in his discussion of evil.
I think he assumes that his readers are a) familiar with his infamous experiment and b) are part of today's world where it has become commonplace to speak of evil as more of a noun and less of an adjective. (I think this is a trend, actually - and it is one that goes in and out of fashion.)
Where I am in the book (chapter 4), I don't think it is really necessary that an immutable definition of evil be settled on. I think Zimbardo is using what each of us define as evil ourselves and what is commonplace to our culture to discuss the issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Recent Topics |
|
|
|
