• In total there are 7 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 7 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

To what extent is moral behavior situational?

#41: Nov. - Dec. 2007 (Non-Fiction)
seeker
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:00 am
16

Unread post

Mr. Pessimistic said:
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?


A few examples of situational ethics:

The most successful salesmen are the ones who are not only adept at conning others, but are able to con themselves into believing that the product they are pedalling is what you need.

The highest paid executives are those who are willing to make the really tough decisions, such as, "how many human lives is a cheaper bumper worth?"

"Liberals have no principles." -- Conservative credo
"Conservatives have no principles." -- Liberal credo

"Urban ghetto life is all about surviving by developing useful 'street-smart' strategies. That means figuring out who has power that can be used against you or to help you, whom to avoid, and with whom you should ingratiate yourself. It means deciphering subtle situational cues for when to fold, creating reciprocal obligations, and determining what it takes to make the transition from follower to leader." -- Philip Zimbardo

"We fought and died for every inch of this land." - Israeli West Bank settler
User avatar
jales4
Intern
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:12 pm
16
Location: Northern Canada

Unread post

MadArchitect wrote: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?
So far, and I am still pondering this, I would agree with your statement above - as I can find ways to justify lying, stealing, taking the life of another human being, and many other immoral things, all in certain situations.

I don't believe that morals are absolute. And if they aren't, then when judging another person, we MUST take their situation into consideration.
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Unread post

jales4 wrote:I don't believe that morals are absolute. And if they aren't, then when judging another person, we MUST take their situation into consideration.
Okay, so if morality is always situational, then how do we go about assessing it in any given situation? Is there a set of criteria that would tell us how to take a person's situation into account when attempting to judge their behavior? Or are we stuck with a set of criteria that presume an absolute morality in judging events that always take their cue from a morality that is situational at best? Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action?
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"
User avatar
jales4
Intern
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:12 pm
16
Location: Northern Canada

Unread post

Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action?
This will give me something to think about at work today - but off the top of my head:

I see this observation as more of a preventative measure - if we know situation x is likely to cause certain behavior, what can we as a society do to either change the situation, or if we can't change the situation, then we can offer support for those in that situation, with the hopes of changing the outcome.

Sorry for the run-on, I don't have time to reword, I'm out the door to work.

[/quote]
User avatar
Mr. P

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
19
Location: NJ
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 137 times
Gender:
United States of America

Unread post

MadArchitect wrote: Okay, so if morality is always situational, then how do we go about assessing it in any given situation? Is there a set of criteria that would tell us how to take a person's situation into account when attempting to judge their behavior? Or are we stuck with a set of criteria that presume an absolute morality in judging events that always take their cue from a morality that is situational at best? Which ought ultimately to lead us to the question of whether or not we can ever competently judge an action?
Well, this is precisely what we as a species have been trying to figure out for tens of thousands of years. We have a lot of work to do but I think we have been making improvements. One thing we did was develop (consciously and not) a system of morals by which to judge behaviors. It is not a perfect system and may never be...but it is all we have so we continue to work it all out.

Just because a system of morality/ethics/law is not inviolate does not make it ok for us to just assume we have no competency in judging situations by using it. We will not hit a home run everytime, but at least we have come this far. It is a work in progress and what is so bad about that?

Mr. P.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Unread post

JTA: 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.
If external situations determine individual behavior and beliefs, then really, there is no such thing as individual behavior or belief...there is only a network of interlocking events reverberating before our eyes. Actually, taken to its full conclusion: soldiers in war are just one of the ways that a particular galactic system mobilizes the milky way to get this minor solar system to fuel our watery globe to blow itself to pieces. Scientifically there is no "self" involved.

Positing a Self with free agency it seems, is an act of poetic license wedded to an ethical desire to hold ourselves and others accountable. Or it can be traced to particular forms of religious revelation where persons are created with free will and thus able to choose righteously or sinfully. Instead of automotons, we are Persons. Instead of simply blindly colliding "its", we are thinking interpersonal "Thou's".

I think we must judge our behaviors, because in the act of judging we define the parameters of our Personhood, lifting us above the robotic automation of impersonal forces in chaotic nihilism...and into responsible interpersonal relationships, affirming our dignity and the integrity of both individual and communal existence.
seeker
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:00 am
16

Unread post

Zimbardo said (p. 226):
The most important lesson to be derived from the SPE is that Situations are created by Systems.
I would use the word Institutions in place of the word Systems; however, I think the point is the "bad apple" explanation for evil is almost always a cover-up for institutions that have encouraged or rewarded those "evil" actions either overtly or covertly. That does not imply that the individual "bad apples" should be held blameless, but that if we stop there we have merely punished a hired assassin, while declaring the master-minds of the crime innocent.
User avatar
jales4
Intern
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:12 pm
16
Location: Northern Canada

Unread post

I'm trying to come up with a list of possible origins of human morality. I am having a bit of a time keeping straight my own mind the differences between behaviors and morals. (Do drugs and alcohol only affect our behaviors, or do they 'loosen' up our morals?)


So far I have:

1.) Inherent
2.) Situational
3.) Drives (?)
4.) Society, friends, and family
5.) Diet, drugs, alcohol (?)

Am I missing any?

Also, since our morals and our behaviors do not match is it possible our morals don't change in situations, but our behaviors do - and we just use the situation to justify our behavior?

This is a MOST thought-provoking book!
MadArchitect

1E - BANNED
The Pope of Literature
Posts: 2553
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 4:24 am
19
Location: decentralized

Unread post

misterpessimistic wrote:One thing we did was develop (consciously and not) a system of morals by which to judge behaviors.
Logically, though, the question of whether or not we're competent to judge behavior must precede the question of whether or not morality is valid. We can't simply assume that morality actually does function to give us some competency. If we're not capable of competently judging behavior, then any morals we may have devised are dubious at best, right?
Just because a system of morality/ethics/law is not inviolate does not make it ok for us to just assume we have no competency in judging situations by using it.
I'm not worried about whether or not it's "ok", whatever that would mean. The concern is that the two are logically inconsistent. Can you simultaneously justify two claims to the effect that, a) the morality of any given act is contingent on the situation in which that act is taken, and b) we are competant to make moral judgments about behavior that occurred in a situation we took no part in? That's what's at stake with an issue like that of how we can judge the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib -- if they can justifiably claim that no one who was not there can be competant to judge their behavior, then where does that leave us?
If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved, Caesar would have spared his country, America would have been discovered more gradually, and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed. -- Mary Shelley, "Frankenstein; or The Modern Prometheus"
seeker
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 7:00 am
16

Unread post

MadArchitect wrote:
That's what's at stake with an issue like that of how we can judge the behavior of guards at Abu Ghraib -- if they can justifiably claim that no one who was not there can be competent to judge their behavior, then where does that leave us?
I believe that leaves us first of all with the distinction between judging their behavior and judging their culpability. We seem to have a consensus, at least among those who express opinions about ethics and as generally reflected in western law, that torture and gross violations of human dignity are offensive. Those of us who agree would judge the behavior of the guards at Abu Ghraib "bad/wrong/repulsive." The question in judging the perpetrators, however, is what, if any, were the mitigating circumstances in each individual case; that is, how much pressure was that individual under? Did the combination of the sustained fear for his/her life, the devaluation of the victim by the indoctrination of the army, the encouragement of the authority figures to "soften up" the prisoners, the hardship of extended service in Iraq, the degradation of powerlessness, dependency, and shame inherent in the prisoners status, and myriad other factors that we can't know, cause a normally peaceful and easygoing person to do things that were unthinkable even to them? To what extent is the commanding officer guilty? To what extent is the army that indoctrinated the soldier and taught that the "enemy" was inhuman guilty? To what extent is the society hungry for revenge for 9/11 and careless of who is the target of that revenge responsible?

In my opinion, this not a matter of whether or not we make judgements. It's a matter of whether we go for the easy judgement to scapegoat the guard as the sole culprit and skate from our responsibility to judge the guard proportionately and to also judge and correct the institutions that taught, encouraged and rewarded the attitudes and behaviors that led to the guard's abuse.
Post Reply

Return to “The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil - by Philip Zimbardo”