The Human Animal (Animals)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 21:57 (5265 days ago) @ dhw

Having now finished reading the complete and very disturbing account of the Milgram Experiment (thank you for that), I would like to add a postscript to what I wrote yesterday about the source of evil, perhaps to bring our viewpoints a little closer together. Our human society is so complex that we have become reliant on authority figures ... e.g. political and religious leaders, and experts in fields we know nothing about. You could therefore argue that our social instincts may put us in situations that result in group-evil (though not in individual crimes, as listed earlier). But I would still say that those social instincts are not the source. In themselves they are neutral, and the worst they can do is make us vulnerable to evil influences, just as they can make us receptive to good influences. (I am of course ignoring the relativity of the two terms.) In my view, the source of the evil in the Milgram/Nazi context is the authority that abuses our dependence.-In some amount of coincidence I had just started thinking about this problem again when I read your post here. -I understand where you're coming from: Social instincts are just a property of being human, like an arm or a leg. -However, my brain cannot leave this trap: maybe you can lift it?-Draw a dot on a piece of paper. That dot is the only man on earth. Draw two arrows--pointing in any direction. Those are two actions he carries out in this world. -But where does this man's moral compass come from? He's the only man? How is he to evaluate if these two actions are performing good or evil? The directions you placed the arrows dictate two different outcomes; for the sake of the exercise, if the arrows are closer together, the kinds of actions are similar, if they're 180 degrees from each other, they're dead opposite.-We have a situation identical to any other kind of observation in mathematics or in any other science, where we've got no unit of measurement, and therefore nothing useful to consider. -Draw another dot.-Now, at this point you have the only situation in which person A's actions can be considered on any kind of scale of "good" or "evil." Therefore, without at least two people, the words "good" and "evil" have absolutely no meaning whatsoever. -If "A" carries out an action, it is neither good nor evil until someone else "B," observes it. -Therefore the source of good/evil comes from the social group--and not the individual. -Nazi's (and the Milgram experiment) are simply two ways of exploiting this nature in order to get people to do things. And yes, I consider exploiting human nature in this fashion to be evil--but a Machiavellan would have a far different appraisal. (If you will the ends, you necessarily will the means.) Or, a more direct argument (though not perfectly on target) is that ALL things we call moral are absolutely relative. There's no such thing as a "selfish" act until there's some kind of agreement on what "selfish" is among a social group. -For the greater discourse about how to deal with this: Cultivating strong individuals is something that is a very new concept in the history of man--and it is THIS concept that is our only defense against being exploited as a society. When groups act as individuals instead of individuals acting in a group--this is where the greatest evils are allowed to manifest. -Now much of this is largely theoretical--it's difficult if you can't step away from all the moral judgments and valuations we both have deeply rooted within us. But I hope... you can see more clearly my dilemma, and though I know you don't agree with me, I hope you can maybe suggest a way out?

--
\"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.\"