Why do ordinary people do bad things... or good things?

An awesome video presentation by Philip Jimbardo

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/spiritual-articles/26731-why-do-ordinary-people-do-bad.html
Enjoy

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

__________________
The intellect of the mind is like a drunken elephant. Whatever one utters is totally false, the most false of the false. - Guru Nanak, 351

In 2004, Zimbardo testified for the defense in the court martial of Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick, a guard at Abu Ghraib prison. He argued that Frederick's sentence should be lessened due to mitigating circumstances, explaining that few individuals can resist the powerful situational pressures of a prison, particularly without proper training and supervision. The judge apparently disregarded Zimbardo's testimony, and gave Frederick the maximum 8-year sentence.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731

Now this is not an idle question. I wonder why the Honorable Judge disregarded Zimbardo's testimony. Why did he not buy it? Why was he not convinced?

The judge is also a human being and he gets swayed by the strong public sentiments in the case.

There is another interesting case of gruesome killings of young women and children in a house in Noida. There was so much public revulsion against the owner of the house that the district court sentenced him to death even though it was proved that the owner was away in Australia at the time of crime. The reason judge gave was that surely the would have known of the crime but he did nothing to prevent it!
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731
Now the high court has reversed the judgment of District court and absolved him of the charge in the particular case. However he continues to remain in custody on account of other murders.

harbhansji

I think the judge was of a different opinion because he did not buy Zimbardo's basic premise. As I see/hear it -- we are not responsible for our actions if we are pressed into action by social pressure.

When act under social pressure, the pressure explains what we did. But does it absolve us from personal responsibility for those acts?
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731

Just asking -- mostly because I myself do not believe in social determinism. Let's see how it goes.

How come?

Zimbardo does present evidence for his premise, and its compelling. Seems to me like we need to change our "punishment-for-criminal-acts" system. The question that comes to mind is How? but too tired to think about it at the moement.

Because in many instances individuals have made choices that contradict the social variables that supposedly shape their behavior.

When? Where? Who?

Well first tell me how one video can present "compelling" evidence of anything. Compelling evidence in the social sciences depends on the replication of many controlled studies.

Then in brief -- throughout Sikh history there are stories of martyrs who defied social variables, pressures to act in certain ways, influences and rewards that shape responses to moral problems, and conventions that could have directed them to make different choices in their lives. What were the conditions of social determinism that led them to choose martyrdom? Why does anyone choose martyrdom?

"It seems to me" that we need to balance the thesis of Zimbardo against at least one competing hypothesis, perhaps one coming from the field of ethics that argues that morality is not situated or contextual, to get a better perspective on how "compelling" Zimbardo's arguments really are.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=26731

Have to sign off. It is 1:30 am in the morning. Will be interested to read your reply.

So if I am to buy this whole premise, the members of that mob that came and murdered my family in Delhi in 1984 must be excused because they were part of a a mob and under social pressure to murder men with long hair and beards.

That is such a ridiculously stupid premise that I wonder why I am bothering to even write about it.

OK, it's late on a Saturday night, and I'll try a little harder.

Narayanjot Kaur ji said:
Bhagat Singh ji responded:

Shall we start with Bhagat Singh during the independence struggle in the Raj?

Or if you don't buy that, how about:

Talk about social pressure: the eight of us in the house were the crazy ones who didn't shed our Sikh identity and run away and hide with kindly Hindus. The others who cut and ran and hid, regarded us as insane and tried to pressure us into following their cowardice and acting as they did, but we refused.

Either we were going against the "social variables that supposedly shape their behavior" or they were. Here is a group with the same "social variables that supposedly shape their behavior" taking diametrically opposed actions.

No ice cream tonight.