The Human Animal (Animals)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 15, 2010, 01:19 (5274 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,
Here's a pretty complete account of the entire experiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment-> ... This is an almost classic case of antisocial behaviour, and it may be that our disagreement is simply a matter of language (as it so often is). Here's a definition: "Antisocial behaviour is violent or harmful to other people, or shows that you do not care about other people" (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The cause of such evil is not the fact that people belong to a group, but the fact that they do as they please, regardless of others. 
> -So by your logic, combined with the evidence provided by the Milgram experiment, antisocial behavior is more prevalent than social behavior? When we went to war with Germany in WWII, we killed many Germans. But this killing was sanctioned by the U.S. social superorganism. It was perfectly acceptable to kill because the German Superorganism had attacked our allies. You neglect this source of evil; evil to one Superorganism is good or necessary to the other. I think you also miss the fact that Germans had no problem helping nor giving aid to German citizens. These people are not antisocial; they were supersocial! Note that Mussolini flat out stated "Socialism is giving the state ownership of property; Fascism is state-ownership of people." You undermine your own argument here because antisocial behavior is behavior such that no other human being is helped. German citizens cheered in support of the Fuhrer just as certainly as our "Janes" here in the U.S. took up industrial wrenches to fill the factory jobs left behind--and our men lined up for war after Dec. 7. -> In the context of the Holocaust, you talk of "all German citizens", as if they all took part in the mass extermination. The vast majority simply did nothing. Perhaps they didn't know, perhaps they didn't care, or perhaps they were afraid. Not knowing is neutral, not caring is antisocial, and being afraid is understandable. Those who willingly took part acted violently and harmfully and showed that they did not care about other people. That = antisocial behaviour.
> -I'm not even talking purely about "The Final Solution." I'm extending this to the entire German war effort. (The Allied war effort as well.) Why do we kill each other in battle? One of my good friends, Steve, fought in the front lines in Iraq. So; he's antisocial? He killed people. He engaged in an us-vs-them mentality. He had no Fuhrer. Why did he become a soldier? He just wanted to serve--and to take advantage of the school support. -So, does this make him evil? I'm trying to find where the lines are here, because I'm not seeing any...-
> If "because" was the right word, all groups and tribes would constantly be at war with one another. The fact that we are social beings is not the CAUSE of war. Your second statement, that our social nature "allows" it to happen, is to my mind far more accurate. You cannot have a war without there being two separate groups, but war usually happens because at least one of those groups (possibly both) is led by individuals with personal ambitions (egotism) and antisocial instincts (violent, harmful, not caring about other people), who are supported by others with the same instincts. -"Because" IS the right word. Individuals don't start wars. Groups start wars. -And groups and tribes DO care about other people!!!!! Just not ALL people! There's a tribe in S. America that rewards those in the tribe that are the best killers of people of other tribes. They get the most wives, the most resources; you name it. But they love their children, care for their elderly; all of the things that you would consider social. Where is the line here?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"