But how do we hold people accountable if we deny them free agency?

Exactly. This is scary stuff we're discussing. If we aren't accountable for our actions and we're all simply products of our situations, environments and genes, what is then the purpose of punishment, prisons, fines, fees, etc...

Chris OConnor wrote:I really would like to believe I'm not such a follower and would be one of the few that stands up and puts an end to the evil.

I think that's part of the problem with Julian's question. Most everyone would like to believe that they'd voice their moral objections, or at least refuse to participate, but the experiment shows that a disproportionate number of people likely would not. So how do you know which side of the line you fall on? I don't know that you can know in advance of the situation. We could probably conjecture as to some rough criteria for making a guess, but without some form of experiential or experimental confirmation, that criteria would be little more than a guess.

DH: One question that arises from this (and I agree with your point here Chris) is: are these good people still responsible for their bad behavior? Are we able to judge their deeds immoral, and then take another step and somehow hold them accountable?

Here are two perspectives for considering these issues:

1) Scientific / psychological: How much do situations determines people's beliefs and actions?

2) Moral: How can we judge people's actions? How much are they responsible for their actions.

Your answer to the first question will influence, but not determine, your answer to the second one. Personally, I'd rather focus on the first question, especially since Zimbardo's challenged my prior beliefs so much.

I believe morality IS situational. Using murder, or the taking of another human beings life as an example:

The majority of people would agree that taking the life of another human being is wrong.

Yet we permit and accept it in war. Many people permit and accept it in the case of capital punishment and abortion.

Also okay in self-defense.

In the not-to-distant past, it was okay to take the life of slaves.

If we accept certain ways to justify murder in these cases, it doesn't seem that it would take a giant leap to be convinced of yet another reason for why it would be acceptable. (As happened in Rwanda).

One of my favorite quotes (I don't know the source) is: "There are no conditions to which a man cannot get accustomed, especially if he sees that everyone around him lives the same way."

If everyone around us is doing it, and it is an accepted practice in our society, or in our prisons, or among our ranks in war, perhaps we can convince ourselves or be convinced by others, that what we are doing IS moral.

qwaszxter wrote:If everyone around us is doing it, and it is an accepted practice in our society, or in our prisons, or among our ranks in war, perhaps we can convince ourselves or be convinced by others, that what we are doing IS moral.

But does the fact that we can convince ourselves that doing X is moral actually make it moral?

For instance, would you give the Abu Ghraib defendants a pass if, instead of arguing that their context convinced them that it wouldn't be immoral to torture and humiliate inmates, the argued that in that particular context it simply was moral, and no change in context could invalidate that it was, in that particular time and place, okay to do what they did?

Or would you say that there is no such thing as morality apart from the circumstances that prevail in a given time and place? And if so, then are we justified in judging other people's behavior from the assumptions of our own time and place?

I believe that morality is largely situational. Slave owners in the United States certainly believed that they were good, God fearing people who had a right to own other human beings.

I bet that this "situational" thing causes a lot of headaches for the military (with respect to sending our troops to war). On the one hand the military needs to create people who are capable of killing other people and the soldiers have to adapt to a whole new world. BUT-the military can't create complete killing machines devoid of morals. How is that balance found?

This is qwaszxter - I had a mixup with usernames - which I've explained in an email to Chris. Jales4 is the username I wish to use.

For instance, would you give the Abu Ghraib defendants a pass if, instead of arguing that their context convinced them that it wouldn't be immoral to torture and humiliate inmates, the argued that in that particular context it simply was moral, and no change in context could invalidate that it was, in that particular time and place, okay to do what they did?

I do not believe that what the guards did IS moral, but I do believe that as humans, we could be easily convinced that it is. (I haven't read far enough into the book to reach the Abu Ghraib section - but I wonder, did the guards think what they were doing was moral at the time? And if so, do they still think their actions were moral now that they are out of that situation?)

As for their defense, I do believe that the situation HAS to be taken into consideration both in finding where guilt lies, and also in considering the sentence.

Someone who randomly goes out and tortures someone should receive a harsher sentence than someone who tortures in a situation like in Abu Ghraib.

Or would you say that there is no such thing as morality apart from the circumstances that prevail in a given time and place? And if so, then are we justified in judging other people's behavior from the assumptions of our own time and place?

Hmmmm, that is something that I really don't know - but I would definetly like to hear some thoughts from both sides. I have very little knowledge about how morality comes about. I know a bit about the nature/nurture debate, and a bit about society's influence on morality, but not enough to respond to your question. Please tell me what you think, and if you can, a bit of what the opposing argument would look like.

I believe in two popular sentiments: "you should walk a mile in a man's moccasins before you judge him" and "there but by the grace of God go I".

I guess by believing these sentiments to be true, I have somewhat of a belief that morality is situational.

As an aside - is there a non-religious variant of the 'there but by the grace of God go I" quote?

I think it is generally acknowledged that if a person is put under enough physical stress (torture, for example), s/he can be broken. Why would not the same thing be true of mental stress? I'm thinking specifically here of the recent case where a mother of several young children, who was also caring for infirm parents and going through post-partem depression, broke down under the stress and murdered her children.

MadArchitect wrote:
But does the fact that we can convince ourselves that doing X is moral actually make it moral?

I guess it comes down to the question: Is morality something definite and set in stone, or is it a creation of the human species to facilitate civilization?

I tend to think that it is more the latter. So from that vantage, the answer to your question is yes...absolutely. But ONE person convincing oneself something is moral will not change the morality of the species as a whole.

Mr. P.

misterpessimistic says:

I wish Zimbardo would have gone into just what screening, testing and judging they did on these people.

If you go to:http://www.thelucifereffect.com/about_c ... nsions.htm there is a bit of discussion about this.
[/url]