Various thoughts on human morality

[Obi2Kenobi]

The Stanford Prison Experiment

In this experiment, the psychologist gathered a group of men, and randomly divided them into two groups: one half prisoners, one half guards. The man leading this experiment played the role of the Warden. He did everything he could to make it realistic, from bringing in ex-convicts to talking to actual guards.

The experiment had to be cancelled after only 6 days -- less than half of the planned time -- due to the increasingly sadistic punishments by the guards and development of psychological disorders by the prisoners.



The Milgram Shock Experiment

(Subjects and teachers are synonymous in this part)
People were chosen, thinking to be participating in an experiment on punishment and learning, and were told that they would be randomly selected at the beginning between learner and teacher. It was rigged so that the subject would always receive the status of teacher. The learner was then put into a room, had electrodes hooked up to him, and asked to answer some questions. If the learner got the question wrong, the teacher would then be asked by a man in a doctor's uniform to shock them with voltage increasing by 15 volts each time.

At 135 volts, the person would complain about their heart condition (which they had disclosed right before the experiment began to the subject [teacher]), and show visible pain, banging and screaming at higher levels. When the subject (teacher) showed discomfort, the man in the doctor's uniform would reassure the subject by saying that he wouldn't be held responsible for anything.

The voltage went up to 450. The shock generator was labeled from "Slight shock" to "Danger: severe shock". The final two switches were labeled only with their voltages, and "XXX".

Milgram notes: "I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within twenty minutes, he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his ear lope, and twisted his hands. At one point, he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered, 'Oh God, let's stop it'. And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end." (Note: This is referring to the person administering the shock. The people "receiving" shocks were actually actors, and the electrodes weren't actually hooked to anything besides themselves.)

Not a single person stopped before 300 volts. Approximately 2/3 continued all the way to final voltage.

The experiment has been repeated many times, with other variables changed. There is no statistically significant difference between men (which is what the original experiment used) and women. People from elementary school drop-outs to doctors have been tested.

In one variant of this test, the subjects must hold the hand of the person on a shock plate to administer the test. In this condition, nearly 1/3 still sent the voltage up to the maximum amount.



The Monkeysphere



There are some who say that humans are the only creature that exhibit immorality, and that all others only kill out of need, and never do so sadistically. I disagree.

Male lions kill all surviving children in a pride they join after killing their father. This can be explained by them wanting to pass on their genes (since the female lion is only fertile when she has no young), true.

But how to explain and bacteria, who survive only by destroying other life? What about army ants, who devour anything in their path (which is why they have to keep moving, they destroy all usable resources in the area)? How are humans different?

I would ask those of you who think this if you own a cat. If so, you have most likely seen how they will catch moths. When they notice it, they usually swat at it until it falls, then they pounce upon it. Sometimes, they'll just keep swatting at it, others they will hold it in their mouths. Then they just watch it. If it moves, they repeat the process, and then when it stops, they lose interest and go away. The cat gains nothing out of this; there is no food benefit, as the cat just left the moth there, with no consumption of it at the end. Ever wonder where the term "cat and mouse" came from?


/edit: Even I couldn't understand that first explanation.

[Guest]

"Humanity" is a synthesis of our inherent nature due to biology and nature due to society(both what is learned and we do because of how socirty will repond.)


Morality is a product of our humanity(as I define morality at least) so you are only looking at a broken piece of itin these odd circumstances.

It would be better to address "base human nature".

[Occhidiangela]

Trust in authority figures explains a lot about the shock experiment, and trust in scientists. That test was a fine practical joke, but if you look at how it was set up, it was a fraud. The subjects were lured in under completely false pretenses.

Moral? Don't trust scientists any further than you trust anyone else. They are human too.


Occhi

[Obi2Kenobi]

Trust in authority figures explains a lot about the shock experiment, and trust in scientists.  That test was a fine practical joke, but if you look at how it was set up, it was a fraud.  The subjects were lured in under completely false pretenses.

Moral?  Don't trust scientists any further than you trust anyone else.  They are human too.
Occhi
[right][snapback]80293[/snapback][/right]

They couldn't exactly have done this by saying, "Hey, we're going to find out how far a person will shock someone when directed to do so by an authority figure", because then people would have had that in mind, and likely rebelled against them just because. Or perhaps they would have shocked them anyway, assuming that it was a scam. Perhaps this would be another experiment needed to be conducted. :wacko:

[Rhydderch Hael]

They couldn't exactly have done this by saying, "Hey, we're going to find out how far a person will shock someone when directed to do so by an authority figure", because then people would have had that in mind, and likely rebelled against them just because. Or perhaps they would have shocked them anyway, assuming that it was a scam. Perhaps this would be another experiment needed to be conducted. :wacko:
[right][snapback]80309[/snapback][/right]

In other words, instead of studying the human condition in all its natural interactions, they set up a limited and highly controlled series of conditions in order to produce conclusions in favor of their inital hypothesis.

Rather than seeing if the subjects caught on or were free to explore the situation, the experimenters wanted to see how far the subjects could be led down this moral cattle chute they set up.

[Chaerophon]

In other words, instead of studying the human condition in all its natural interactions, they set up a limited and highly controlled series of conditions in order to produce conclusions in favor of their inital hypothesis.

Rather than seeing if the subjects caught on or were free to explore the situation, the experimenters wanted to see how far the subjects could be led down this moral cattle chute they set up.
[right][snapback]80310[/snapback][/right]

Well put :) I too find their results to be a tad predetermined - everything will be alright, everyone will be fine, they know what they're in for... and you're a bad person for belieiving us seemingly trustworthy folks. Whose 'morals' (if that's the right word) were really put to the test here in the name of science is an open question.

[Archon_Wing]

They couldn't exactly have done this by saying, "Hey, we're going to find out how far a person will shock someone when directed to do so by an authority figure", because then people would have had that in mind, and likely rebelled against them just because. Or perhaps they would have shocked them anyway, assuming that it was a scam. Perhaps this would be another experiment needed to be conducted. :wacko:
[right][snapback]80309[/snapback][/right]

Yea, they were better off with another better thought out experiment. Just because something is hard doesn't mean doesn't mean you take the unethical way out.

There will always be bias in an experiment, which is why the concept of repeated testing and the ability to be duplicated are important. Ultimately, people will always act diffrently in a setup setting, just because it is set up.

[whyBish]

...
[right][snapback]80282[/snapback][/right]

Well the first couple are standard case studies in psychological experimental design, and also in ethics courses. Neither of these experiments would get ethical approval any more (in Western Societies).

"humans are the only creature that exhibit immorality"
And what would immorality be? Wouldn't it require an understanding of the effect of an action?

"The cat gains nothing out of this"
Well, I would put forward two possibilities.
1) The cat gains a training benefit.
2) The behaviour is an artifact of the Cat's genetic wiring, that does not have a strong enough negative effect to have an influence on survival (therefore it passes on genetically), or the near genetic 'jumps' that don't include moth swatting reduce survival (can be quite likely since extra logic requires extra energy = less efficient)


"But how to explain and bacteria, who survive only by destroying other life? What about army ants, who devour anything in their path (which is why they have to keep moving, they destroy all usable resources in the area)? How are humans different?
"
Not sure where you get bacteria surviving only by destroying life. Perhaps you mean viruses that survive only by destroying *cells*. Humans have tons of symbiotic bacteria that are vital to life (particularly in breakdown of food).
As to the ants, how would it be efficient to leave food behind??? If any predator became 'too good' it would make its prey extinct, and hence itself. Evolution does not occur to single organisms, it occurs to a system of organisms.

[Chesspiece_face]

Well put :)  I too find their results to be a tad predetermined - everything will be alright, everyone will be fine, they know what they're in for... and you're a bad person for belieiving us seemingly trustworthy folks.  Whose 'morals' (if that's the right word) were really put to the test here in the name of science is an open question.
[right][snapback]80314[/snapback][/right]

taking todays ethical standards and judging the very experiments that caused us to have these standards is inherantly off base. When they did these experiments the idea of ethics we have today didn't exist.

also when they did those experiments they expected certain results. that they got the results isn't what is suprising, what is suprising is the degree of the extremes. in the shock experiment they never thought people would go that far.

the real point of these experiments is that what we call morals or ethics isn't an inherant human quality, it is largely based on environment. subtle changes in environment can cause exponential changes in behavior and the total dissolution of what we call morals.

[Rinnhart]

It's all reaction. Morality, life, existence as a whole- all direct results of something that came before.

I've read and responded to this post. In doing so, I've learned and changed. Because I read and responded to this post, I will never be the same again. It may be a slight change, but it is change. But I was always going to read this post, I was always going to respond- just as your reading my response was preordained by the events that foreran it. So, have I really changed- or am I merely fulfilling the duty alotted to me in this boiling swell of existence?

It's all chaos, it's all order. It doesn't matter. What happens, will happen. Free will is an illusion derived from our inability to comprehend the Big Picture.

I sit here attempting to articulate something someone else has said better. I sit here reflecting upon the humorous nature of the coincidence that I'm sitting here attempting to articulate something someone else has said better- and I'm wondering if anyone knows who's said it better, because I could use some new material.

Listening to #$%&ty Seattle grunge always does this to me.

[Occhidiangela]

I sit here attempting to articulate something someone else has said better. I sit here reflecting upon the humorous nature of the coincidence that I'm sitting here attempting to articulate something someone else has said better- and I'm wondering if anyone knows who's said it better, because I could use some new material.

Listening to #$%&ty Seattle grunge always does this to me.
[right][snapback]80365[/snapback][/right]

May I suggest a little Mozart now and again? It is cleaner, clearer, and provides a coherent background base for navel gazing. :D Tchaikovsky as well, though it tends to induce a slightly more dynamic mental response.

Occhi

[Jeunemaitre]

also when they did those experiments they expected certain results.  that they got the results isn't what is suprising, what is suprising is the degree of the extremes.  in the shock experiment they never thought people would go that far.
[right][snapback]80362[/snapback][/right]

I may not have a doctorate in Psychology, but I do have a bachelor's (BS Psych cum laude, Syracuse University, Class of '00) and I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express in the recent past. I have to disagree with the second line there: Milgram did not get what he was expecting.

Milgram actually conducted that experiment shortly after the end of WWII when Nazi soldiers were defending themselves in international courts by stating that they were "following orders." Milgram was appalled at the idea and designed the experiment with the expectation that rational human beings would protest to the authority figure and would decline to continue the experiment when presented with the suffering their actions caused, despite direction from the "authority figure" to proceed. The experiment rather showed that the power of a white lab-coat outweighed the perceived (although false) suffering of another human being. Despite his original intention to disprove the ability of authority to overrule individual morality, he was forced to conclude that in certain instances, direction of authority was indeed more powerful than an individuals sense of right/wrong.

In the series of experiments that followed, Milgram and others using similar design's found that the proximity of the authority could overpower the proximity of the "subject" in predicting the willingness of the "teacher" to continue. The original experiment placed a physical barrier between the "teacher" and the "subject." This trial was the one that found most participants were willing to complete the shock board even when they were directed that "no response should be considered an incorrect response," and the "subject" had ceased responding 10 questions earlier after loud protests and cries of pain. Removing the physical barrier in the later experiment was the one that still resulted in many still completing the board.

I'm not as familiar with the Stanford Prison experiment, but I believe there was a variant where the group was divided into two and spent three days on either side of the bars, then switched for three days. I think I remembered that the group that went guard->prisoner felt that they were treated worse when they were prisoners than they treated the prisoners when they were guards; and the group that went prisoner->guard felt the opposite: that they treated prisoners better when they were guards than they had been treated when they were prisoners. Just another argument for the old "what you see depends..." statements.

edit: clarify what degree I'm talking about

[Rinnhart]

May I suggest a little Mozart now and again?  It is cleaner, clearer, and provides a coherent background base for navel gazing.  :D  Tchaikovsky as well, though it tends to induce a slightly more dynamic mental response.

Occhi
[right][snapback]80388[/snapback][/right]

Just for that, I'm going to listen to straight up hair metal for a few hours and post again.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Just for that, I'm going to listen to straight up hair metal for a few hours and post again.
[right][snapback]80425[/snapback][/right]

I suggest instead the second or third albums from Apocalyptica, Inquistion Symphony or Cult. Avoid the first album— you'd get the same effect as listening to MIDI renditions of Metallica songs, and their latest (fourth) album is the farthest the group has ever strayed from the metal influence.

Inquisition Symphony and Cult represents the apex of Apocalyptica's experiment in sound, with Symphony showcasing their best covers and Cult featuring their finest original arrangements. With Symphony they demonstrated the important progress of moving away from the rut of playing metal songs by way of cello— to the art of creating cello arrangements that just happen to be based off of metal songs. A subtle but important difference that elevates Symphony from their previous album. And with Cult, they gained enough confidence to shuck the cover songs and opt for original arrangements instead— a graduation rightfully due and deservingly fulfilled.

Though you may assume they're the same genre as Apocalyptica, the Trans-Siberian Orchestra is in an entirely different league. Below. TSO made their name by taking classical music and throwing in a rock/metal twist. Apocalyptica takes rock metal and bends it to a classical vein. Big difference.

It's all the difference between a symphony (TSO) and a concerto (Apocalyptica). Symphonies simply bury you in sound, trying to convey their impression through the merged whole of their massive work.

On the other hand, you can pick apart and analyze a concerto. And just as so, you can pick apart every instrument being played within an Apocalyptica piece and see how their attack fits into the greater whole. You can't do that to a symphony— the individual contribution of one instrument is simply too insignificant within those grandiose pieces.

[Nystul]

The problem is that, since the shock experiments were not real, you would have to be careful what conclusions you draw from them. While the people in the experiment complied with the authority figures to an extreme extent, their judgment in doing so was actually right, because the authority figures actually were ethical, and nobody was actually being harmed in the experiment. Then it becomes impossible to draw any meaningful objective conclusions from the experiment, and any subjective conclusions would only be available to those who witnessed the entire process firsthand. The acting job of the "student" is relatively straightforward, but the acting job of the "authority figure" is a much more complex one , which could have huge results on the outcome of the experiment.

People are inclined to respect authority, although perhaps less now than at the time of the experiment. But people do judge authority figures, not only by what they are asked to do, but by their read on the person giving the orders. One of my first questions about the experiment would be how far the actor pretending to be shocked would go to try to stop the experiment. How much was that person being physically restrained, and was that person not just screaming and begging to stop but making clear physical attempts to escape the experiment?

[Obi2Kenobi]

The problem is that, since the shock experiments were not real, you would have to be careful what conclusions you draw from them.  While the people in the experiment complied with the authority figures to an extreme extent, their judgment in doing so was actually right, because the authority figures actually were ethical, and nobody was actually being harmed in the experiment.  Then it becomes impossible to draw any meaningful objective conclusions from the experiment, and any subjective conclusions would only be available to those who witnessed the entire process firsthand.  The acting job of the "student" is relatively straightforward, but the acting job of the "authority figure" is a much more complex one , which could have huge results on the outcome of the experiment.[right][snapback]80455[/snapback][/right]

But if the person thought that it was real, it's the same (to them) as being real.

[jahcs]

As far as authority figures and their power over people the Military is a special case. Part of training as a soldier is to take orders and carry them out.
If you got a group of 500 random Americans and told them to "take that bunker over there" you would probably get 495 responses of "F*** you!" By the same token, if you get a squad of 10 infantry soldiers together and tell them to take that same bunker they will find a way.

At the same time soldiers have a duty to refuse to obey unlawfull orders. The Abu Ghraib scandal? Many of the MPs said they didn't have adequate training. How do you train someone to not sodomise a prisoner with a chemlite? It isn't something you should have to train soldiers not to do. Then you get into what exactly were the supervisors doing during this time...

For the prison experiment: The grass is always greener on the other side. Most of the time most people feel most of their actions are completely justified and that everyone else is just "out to get 'em."

The way humans interact with and view the world around them is based on point of view, experience, morals, and a host of other factors. Are we paying attention to the right inputs when life presents us with the choice?

[Nystul]

But if the person thought that it was real, it's the same (to them) as being real.
[right][snapback]80470[/snapback][/right]

Yes, although a scary movie can make me fidget, scream, and possibly even vomit, without convincing me that it is real. But even if they were absolutely convinced the shock was real, that's not enough. Did the people think that it was both real and wrong? What was their perception of the pain being caused by the shocks, and did they think it had any chance of causing permanent damage? Could the person adminstrating the test have been as calm and reassurring if the shock was actually real, and if not, would that not have led to more people quitting the test sooner? If the person being shocked was physically restrained, the other person may have feared repercussions for quitting (i.e. "this scientist is a psycho and he is going to put me in that chair if I mess up the experiment"), and if the person being shocked was not physically restrained, it would be hard to believe there was anything morally wrong with the experiment (if the guy doesn't want to continue he would just walk out?).

It's a fascinating experiment, but it does seem sloppy to me.

[Jeunemaitre]

One of my first questions about the experiment would be how far the actor pretending to be shocked would go to try to stop the experiment.  How much was that person being physically restrained, and was that person not just screaming and begging to stop but making clear physical attempts to escape the experiment?
[right][snapback]80455[/snapback][/right]

I can only remember the original experiment (where the two were in seperate rooms. The "teacher" was brought to one room where he witnessed the "subject" (accomplice) being strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to his chest. Then the "teacher" was lead to another room where the shockboard was set up. The board the "teacher" operated was labeled from 15v - mild shock, past mild pain, moderate pain, severe pain, up to "XXX Extreme Danger." Meanwhile, the accomplice unstrapped himself, and retreaved a tape recording of the protests, and positioned it next to the wall of the room where the "teacher" was. Following each questions, the prespecified section of the recording was played. Protests included shouting, grunting, stamping on the floor, complaining of numbness, and cautioning about a heart condition. At a certain point, the recording ends, and each attempt at communication is met with only silence, as though the accomplice had been rendered unconscious.

The authority figure followed a preset script where he would respond to questions from the "teacher" with "The rules of the experiment dictate that you should continue." Second protests, or questions about effects on the "subject" were met with "You will not be held responsible for anything that happens to Mr. _____, please continue with the experiment." All interaction from the authority was to be conducted in a calm tone of voice. No physical demonstrations were to be made. The physical appearance of the authority figure was always the same (it was the same guy for all of the participants in the experiment, dressed the same way, with the same white lab coat).

As for the reality of the experiment, I think we need to remember that scientists do the best they can to replicate actual conditions in a lab setting. I know you're not suggesting that the correct way to conduct this experiment is to put someone in a chair and actually shock them, but all that's necessary for the experiment is for the participant to believe that they are the ones in control of the shocking. The question is not will a rational person shock someone else, the question is will a rational person carry out orders despite a conflicting personal moral conviction (specifically: it is assumed that a rational person has a personal moral conviction that states harming others is wrong).

Nystul, what exactly seems sloppy about the experiment? It may simply be that not enough of the procedure has been explained yet. Most of the folks that I learned from felt that this was actually a relatively well designed investigation for its time (late 1940s). This, and some other studies done about the same time, led to the development of "Human Subjects" rules for experiments, which include the process of informed consent, minimization of risks, adequate explanation, justification of individual risk vs. value of experimental outcome, etc.

edit: really, it was consucted huh?

[Nystul]

I guess it is just that, 60 years after the fact, the results seem so self-evident. The more repulsed you would be by the experiment, the more afraid you would be to stop. Perhaps I, unlike the psychologist who set up this experiment, find nothing surprising about the behavior of the Nazi soldiers who were "just following orders".