The Darley-Batson study (1973) suggests we very well might be capable of doing things we believe ourselves incapable of doing—based on the situation in which we find ourselves.
It feels weird "loving" a post like this (i.e., one that so directly rebukes me). I guess it's a good thing though. I pray it will spur me to be more cognizant of how I'm spending my time and what's really determining the course of my life choices.
Thank you, Jon. I have always admired your ability to write succinctly and coherently on quite a variety of subjects and topics. Some great comments preceded mine. This is a good reminder of our strength of mind, but also our frailty of spirit as we encounter life and collate our priorities. Priorities can blow in the wind and the wind touches us all so differently.
As a Voluntaryist Humanist responsible for my freedom, I have taken care not to allow myself to be in "Bad Barrels" that make "Bad Apples" such as the Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiments, or Wars, riots, etc.
Everyone should study the Milgram Experiment in depth. With the original version of 40 men, 26 gave the maximum shock, 65%. The psychiatrists who were asked before the experiment the percentage they thought would give the maximum, their averaged estimate was less than 1%.
The results of the experiment shocked everyone, pun intended, and should still shock everyone.
Look at any and all the wars and recognize the horrors "normal" men (it is almost always males) act out in these extreme situations.
I consider Lloyd deMause has the truest understanding of why both males and females hurt or murder other human beings and it is child abuse/neglect.
Here is from the preface of Lloyd's second book, The Emotional Life of Nations:
"The purpose of this book is to reveal for the first time how the ultimate cause of all wars and human misery is the parental holocaust of children throughout history–an untold story of how literally billions of innocent, helpless children have been routinely killed, bound, battered, mutilated, raped and tortured and then as adults have inflicted upon others the nightmares they themselves experienced."
Here for free download--everyone should read this book and the others Lloyd has written.
Peaceful persons and peaceful parenting are the only way to break this vicious cycle of the damned and damaged damning and damaging their offspring and others which is why I teach Parent Effectiveness Training and Voluntaryism whose only moral principle is no initiation of physical force or threat thereof.
There are similar arguments being made about history. We want to say we’d be against the bad things. But history, context, and setting are such impactful factors that we don’t know. For example, if Julius Caser was born today, he wouldn’t be conquering the world, he’d be an exceptional salesman or something similar. In the past we might have been “good” people or people committing horrible acts. It depends on the context and the time.
Robert A. Heinlein rather pithily observed that "man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal."
Similarly, we might also say that man is not a moral animal, but a moralizing animal.
Moral rules are easily reduced to absolutes, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself." Yet the situations in which we must apply them are almost never reducible to such binary logic. In most if not all situations, we must apply not one but several moral and ethical principles, and somehow still arrive at a notionally "correct" answer.
Which is perhaps why Jesus cautioned us against judging others. We do not know--we cannot know--all that goes into another person's moral choices. We might know (or at least think we know) the choice we would make in a particular situation, but that is all we can know.
Moral rules are absolutes. Moral situations are considerably less so.
It feels weird "loving" a post like this (i.e., one that so directly rebukes me). I guess it's a good thing though. I pray it will spur me to be more cognizant of how I'm spending my time and what's really determining the course of my life choices.
That's the right response to a study like this, imo.
Thank you, Jon. I have always admired your ability to write succinctly and coherently on quite a variety of subjects and topics. Some great comments preceded mine. This is a good reminder of our strength of mind, but also our frailty of spirit as we encounter life and collate our priorities. Priorities can blow in the wind and the wind touches us all so differently.
So true!
As a Voluntaryist Humanist responsible for my freedom, I have taken care not to allow myself to be in "Bad Barrels" that make "Bad Apples" such as the Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiments, or Wars, riots, etc.
Everyone should study the Milgram Experiment in depth. With the original version of 40 men, 26 gave the maximum shock, 65%. The psychiatrists who were asked before the experiment the percentage they thought would give the maximum, their averaged estimate was less than 1%.
The results of the experiment shocked everyone, pun intended, and should still shock everyone.
Look at any and all the wars and recognize the horrors "normal" men (it is almost always males) act out in these extreme situations.
I consider Lloyd deMause has the truest understanding of why both males and females hurt or murder other human beings and it is child abuse/neglect.
Here is from the preface of Lloyd's second book, The Emotional Life of Nations:
"The purpose of this book is to reveal for the first time how the ultimate cause of all wars and human misery is the parental holocaust of children throughout history–an untold story of how literally billions of innocent, helpless children have been routinely killed, bound, battered, mutilated, raped and tortured and then as adults have inflicted upon others the nightmares they themselves experienced."
Here for free download--everyone should read this book and the others Lloyd has written.
https://psychohistory.com/books/the-emotional-life-of-nations/
Peaceful persons and peaceful parenting are the only way to break this vicious cycle of the damned and damaged damning and damaging their offspring and others which is why I teach Parent Effectiveness Training and Voluntaryism whose only moral principle is no initiation of physical force or threat thereof.
Get free, stay safe.
There are similar arguments being made about history. We want to say we’d be against the bad things. But history, context, and setting are such impactful factors that we don’t know. For example, if Julius Caser was born today, he wouldn’t be conquering the world, he’d be an exceptional salesman or something similar. In the past we might have been “good” people or people committing horrible acts. It depends on the context and the time.
Robert A. Heinlein rather pithily observed that "man is not a rational animal; man is a rationalizing animal."
Similarly, we might also say that man is not a moral animal, but a moralizing animal.
Moral rules are easily reduced to absolutes, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself." Yet the situations in which we must apply them are almost never reducible to such binary logic. In most if not all situations, we must apply not one but several moral and ethical principles, and somehow still arrive at a notionally "correct" answer.
Which is perhaps why Jesus cautioned us against judging others. We do not know--we cannot know--all that goes into another person's moral choices. We might know (or at least think we know) the choice we would make in a particular situation, but that is all we can know.
Moral rules are absolutes. Moral situations are considerably less so.