Zimbardo makes another interesting flip point. We often hear about the banality of evil, but this also means that heroism is banal. Disobeying evil orders is not something that requires special, amazing personal characteristics; it simply requires a willingness to honestly attempt to assess what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it even when everyone else is going the other way.
Will Wilkinson, meanwhile, points out that our very attitude about evil is something of an anomaly. In his amazing book, The Elusive Quest for Growth, William Easterly points out that development groups usually ask the wrong question: Why are people (or countries) poor? Poverty is the normal state of humanity. It is our current wealth that is an amazing anomaly.
Similarly, why do people do horrible violent things is perhaps the wrong question. Brutality is pretty much the norm for most of human history; as we've gotten richer, we've gotten less violent in all sorts of ways--we've stamped out (mostly) once common practices like infanticide, torture, wife beating, and the stoning of adulterers. Hunter gatherers are vastly more likely to die from homicide than people living in the developed world. Goodness is, in some sense, a luxury good. The most valuable luxury good we have.
I can't believe you blogged four times on this forum already!
Are you going to tackle the issue or just leave us hanging?
Are you going to tackle the issue or just leave us hanging?
I hate it when double posts happen.
Okay, you posit that goodness is the result of economic prosperity. I propose that economic prosperity is the result of "goodness". Money problems are a measure of the underlying attitudes and actions of nations and many individuals.
Haven't we just substituted abortion for infanticide?
Also, the overall history of 20th century Europe and America doesn't support the hypothesis that rich nations are less brutal than poor societies. Maybe homicide is a little more common in hunter gatherer societies, but they don't have slave labor camps.
100's of millions of killed during the various wars of the 20th C. says what? about your Thesis?
You write,
"We often hear about the banality of evil, but this also means that heroism is banal. Disobeying evil orders is not something that requires special, amazing personal characteristics; it simply requires a willingness to honestly attempt to assess what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it even when everyone else is going the other way."
Quite the inverse. Peer pressure is an enormous force on our lives. Standing up to it is difficult. That's why we celebrate people like Sophie Scholl, who stand up to evil.
It is not banal to take a stand for right when everyone around you is indifferent or hostile. It's uncommonly courageous.
'Goodness' is a more ecompassing field; but, I think most would agree, gentleness of lack of expressed aggression in interaction is associated with increase in social class. This is why, in part, I thought Ari Fleischer was lying in his testimony about Scooter Libby. All the rest of the testimony as to the meetings and conversations that Libby had indicated that aggression was expressed in a very indirect way whereas, in Fliescher's recollections of Libby's statements to him about Plame, plans were given in a relatively aggressive and vicious tone. As to expressing aggression as a member of an idealized group (a subject of a nearby post), I think that the trial also was revealing. The jury on the day they were instructed to begin deliberations all wore a 'Happy Valentine's to you' t-shirt. I thought this indicated that they were concluding the trial in a gentle mood, however they had no trouble dispatching Mr. Libby who apparently then was seen as an Other, i.e. 'dehuamanized.' Sorry if this takes the post somewhat afield, but I think it is consistent with your main points.
"Okay, you posit that goodness is the result of economic prosperity. I propose that economic prosperity is the result of "goodness". Money problems are a measure of the underlying attitudes and actions of nations and many individuals."
Well I propose that it's a feedback loop.
"I propose that economic prosperity is the result of "goodness". Money problems are a measure of the underlying attitudes and actions of nations and many individuals."
Does that mean that the Klingon Empire is impossible? Or is it too early for SciFi Friday?
A number of posts infer that rich nations are as brutal as poor nations. This goes to the common nature of mankind. But the history of war over the last several hundred years is evidence that "goodness" precedes prosperity. The evil of Nazi Germany and Stalin Russia ultimately led to their military and economic downfall.
There are some economic correlations. Currency is only worth something if both parties "trust" that it is. The dollar is backed by the our collective "faith" in the USA financial system. Contracts only work because it's assumed that both parties intend to responsibly carry out their obligations. Trust, faith and responsibility are classic Judeo Christian ethical building blocks.
Communist Russia, despite their vast natural resources, destroyed wealth. If you put $100,000 into an American bank, would it ever occur to you that you would loose it? Not a chance. Would you put $100,000 into a Russian bank with the same confidence?
Wealth generation and the associated prosperity is directly tied to people's ethics and morals.
So, the Klingon society could never prosper for long.
"The evil of Nazi Germany and Stalin Russia ultimately led to their military and economic downfall."
Wait, that doesn't sound right. Unless Stalin's Russia crumbled in the 1950's and I missed it, Stalin's evil held no reprocussions. Soviet Russia collapsed during the reign of stodgy agrarian reformer Gorbachev.
Wasn't Maoist China also evil? And look at them now, so magnificently prosperous and hegemenous.
Very Marxist. We're much nicer to each other when our material needs are met.
Freddiemac - Mao was evil and China paid a huge price for his leadership. But Deng Xiaoping brought China closer to capitalism, economically. There's been a generation since Mao. China is very prosperous, sure, but they're absolutely wrecking their environment. There are a lot of problems that we in the west just don't see.
Good nations tend to have less conflict within their in-group and may or may not have conflict with out groups. That's crucial for prosperity. The larger the (cohesive, trustworthy) in-group, the more division of labor and economy of scale you can have and the less time you have to invest in making sure every purchase is reliable.
China is analogous to the Roman empire or Iran. you can't always trust the goods it produces. There's no regulation of food whatsoever to give just one notable instance. A friend got heavy metal poisoning from living there 6 months. They still use harmful food dyes.
And you've heard about all the horrors of items they've sent over here. But they've cobbled together reasonable in-groups through extended family, friends, and respect for authority. This network of personal relationships isn't quite as effective as relying on the trust of strangers, but that, plus a respect for discipline and a ruler willing to use force to preserve basic security is enough to build an petty empire on.
What's the per-person productivity of China relative to the US? I'm pretty sure the US is still higher than China.
And I bet US productivity would be even higher per person in the US if we kept our social structure but were willing to reduce the minimum wage here (to boost unemployment and to encourage more highly skilled individuals to spend their time using their skills, not cleaning and washing dishes) and remove some of our social spending (medicare and medicade for instance) as well as observe the same environmental laws that China does. Not that we want to, but if productivity were the issue, we could.
But I think China will succeed BECAUSE they are reasonably well organized, they won't become organized because they are successful.
I don't think goodness is a luxury good. I don't think we are good at all. We no longer engage in the most brutal activities because rule of law is a luxury good and we have more to lose by opposing it. When the price of something goes up, people demand less of it. It's pleasant to think that we are good people, but we are not. We are no better than the baby-killing, torturing, wife-beating, adulterer-stoners. We just face different incentives.
Boy it sure must be nice to sit there and assume that everyone in the past was a mindless barbarian. I'm glad you're so different and free thinking. Just like 75% of the rest of the people in every previous generation.
BTW I think Eli definitely hit the nail on the head. It's nice of Megan to assume that she's better just because she has money though.
Hey Megan,
Wrong answer. I continue to marvel at your intellect that has obviously been devoid of experience beyond the superficial and protected world you seem to exist in.
>>"Disobeying evil orders is not something that requires special, amazing personal characteristics; it simply requires a willingness to honestly attempt to assess what the right thing to do is, and the will to do it even when everyone else is going the other way."
freddiemac,
Stalin's Russia collapsed. He was one of those who built it and set it in motion, and the natural way of things caused it to collapse.
I can't believe that is hard for you to comprehend. That sometimes it could take a mere 50 years for a state run society to collapse.
Who suggested that if we take a "wrong turn" as a society today, that things will immediately fall apart? There may be immediate signs to those willing to notice, but it could take a generation or more for the downfall to come about. Actually when you think about it, the USRR collapsed in record time.
They went from being backwards farmers, to becoming the fear of the Western world, and right back to being a lessor concern (from a security standpoint, not trying to sound condescending towards Russians, got a lot of friends there and I love them).
It's pretty amazing when you think about it. It took the Roman Empire a lot longer to fall apart. Perhaps its because the Romans didn't chose to throw basic economic principles out the window as the fundemental building block of their society.
>>"Megan, I don't understand how your life informs your failure to comprehend what acting in actual defiance to the authority of power, or overwhelming societal norms costs the defiant individual."
Quite a bunch of self-conceited people we must be. For one everyone that posts on a topic has come to the conclusion that what they say matters to somebody else. A false assumption.
As for richer countries being more or less brutal, I would only point out to those who find the US, Europe, Japan to be brutal are missing the essence of brutality. Brutality is by no means measured only in a body count. Ghengis Khan had a Silver goblet made out of an opponent's skull. Timur the lame (Tamerlane) Raped Bayezet's wife in front of him. Or the clean methodical death created by Nazi Germany in their final solution. Brutality is not a number, its a method. One that you will not find at Guantanamo, French prisons, or Israel and Palestine. They all seem off the mark. I'd posit that brutality is defined at least in part in the desire to cause immense amounts of personal pain, anguish, and despair to the point where the victim desires death instead of life. That particular desire I do not see repeated on as grandiose a scale as many claim. I see vengeance, false senses of self-righteous truths, or the pragmatic desire to protect twisted into a banal contempt. But that old brutality, the kind that doesn't make you laugh, the kind that chills the soul, that seems a very rare bird.
What Marc said. We're social animals. How do you "honestly assess" the situation when everyone around you already knows what the right thing to do is? Can we so easily buck both authority and our peer group?
Wasn't that the point of the prison experiment, and the Milgram experiment? You wouldn't expect these folks to administer killing shocks, or be sadistic bastards as prison guards, but that's what happened.
Also, the overall history of 20th century Europe and America doesn't support the hypothesis that rich nations are less brutal than poor societies. Maybe homicide is a little more common in hunter gatherer societies, but they don't have slave labor camps.
Secondly, they did have rape, slave labour, etc.
Firstly, in hunter-gatherer societies we are talking about a 25% to 30% adult male death rate from violence - this is far beyond "a little more common". A death rate of this in the 20th century would have lead to 2 billion deaths.
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2007_03_19_New%20Republic.pdf
Actually, Megan's point about the hunter-gatherers makes perfect sense, but doesn't have much to do with evil. The richer you are, the more likely you are to have access to institutions that allow you to get what you want without violence. New Guineans have vendettas; Americans (if they can afford them) have lawsuits. A PhD in economics doesn't join a gang, because he can make so much more money at so much less risk by working in industry.
I find a lot less convincing the idea that brutal governments inevitably collapse. Most governments collapse in the long run; I've never seen any kind of correlation between the brutality of a government and the length of its tenure. I'm not even sure that democracies are stable -- look at all the "fragile" democracies like Kenya or Afghanistan which seem to reverse their gains very quickly. And historically, autocratic monarchies and empires have been very stable.
Pinker says it best.
homosapiens sapiens is hardwired for survival.
the question isn't "why is there is brutality and war"...but-- "why is there ever goodness and peace?"
Goodness is a luxury item? Let's make it "Trust is a luxury item."
There have been interesting posts on the blog Shrinkwrapped in the last month or so (I think) that talk about societies where trust is appropriate and societies where "Dominate or be dominated" is the only rule.
We are always in danger of losing--even in a nation of laws and legal institutions--the all-important condition of mutual public trust. Its enemies are personal cynicism and hollowness, divisiveness, deceit, cant.
Trust is the invisible luxury item we rely on.
I agree with the general premise, as modified by several comments here. While goodness, rule of law, and prosperity are in a feedback loop, social trust on an extended scale is the driving engine that makes all of them go. Voluntary division of labor requires considerable trust.
sam,
You say "He was one of those who built it and set it in motion, and the natural way of things caused it to collapse". But isn't that exactly true of China? Mao set it up. The reforms in China aren't fundamentally any different than the reforms set up by Gorbachev.
"Who suggested that if we take a "wrong turn" as a society today, that things will immediately fall apart?"
I don't know, certainly I didn't suggest it.
"Actually when you think about it, the USRR collapsed in record time."
What is record about it? They became the USSR in 1917-1918, and collapsed in 1991. That is a 74 year run, far longer than Nazi Germany or the French 4th Republic.
A lot of "Evil Empires" have prospered for a long time, and a lot of virtuous peoples have prospered only briefly. History is rife with these examples. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Ryan w.
"Mao was evil and China paid a huge price for his leadership. But Deng Xiaoping brought China closer to capitalism, economically. There's been a generation since Mao."
All true of Soviet Russia in the late 80s.
"China is analogous to the Roman empire or Iran."
In what way?
Communist China is not really so much of a departure from previous Chinese dynasties, really. Also, I don't see what Chinese productivity vs US has to do with goodness at all. What are you trying to argue?
100's of millions of killed during the various wars of the 20th C. says what? about your Thesis?
Jared Diamond answers:
"... twentieth-century state societies, having developed potent technologies of mass killing, have broken all historical records for violent deaths.
"But this is because they enjoy the advantage of having by far the largest populations of potential victims in human history.
"The actual percentage of the population that died violently was on the average higher in traditional pre-state societies than it was even in Poland during the Second World War or Cambodia under Pol Pot."
~~~
"Hunter-gatherer societies are scrupulously egalitarian, but not harmoniously so. They are violently egalitarian."
--Herbert Gintis
Sounds like somebody doesn't have an iPhone...
"we've gotten less violent in all sorts of ways--we've stamped out (mostly) once common practices like infanticide, torture, wife beating, and the stoning of adulterers..."
I assume we are excluding Muslims here. Perhaps spiritual poverty inspires violence in a manner similar to physical poverty.
The fascinating Pinker article Tracy W links to above, reporting findings to the effect that human violence had been decreasing over the long, medium, and short term, was the basis for my remarks. This is an astonishing fact, and also pretty puzzling. It seems we're becoming less evil without even trying. I wondered what Zimbardo's work on evil has to tell us about this. He proposes a program for guarding against our worst inclinations -- and I'm completely on board with that -- but there seem to be broad changes in economic and social structure affecting culture in a way that is having the desired effect independent of our discovery of the contexts in which people are inclined to become wantonly cruel. I conjectured that the expansion of extended order of global exchange and the tightly related diffusion of liberal culture may be behind this development.
freddiemac -
Communist China is not really so much of a departure from previous Chinese dynasties, really.
China isn't really communist now. It's more fascist. Or were you referring to China in its communist days?
"China is analogous to the Roman empire or Iran."
In what way?
Formation of ingroups based primarily on personal relationships. It's a powerful tool. But if that's your primary tool you won't scale very well.
While the American family structure seems to be weakening and Americans are a bit more isolated than in the past, people in American culture are better able to trust people that they haven't met, which is a very scalable mode of social organization.
Also, I don't see what Chinese productivity vs US has to do with goodness at all. What are you trying to argue?
I'm arguing that while China is still ascendant that it still isn't where America is yet in terms of social organization and capacity for trust of strangers and public concern for public welfare and that this will be reflected in productivity (now and even after China fully industrializes.)
The Nazi period and (the ease of) disobeying orders have been remarked on. In these contexts, it might be noted that in WWI 78 German soldiers were executed by there own side, in WWII 22,000.
Posted by Jim Glass | June 13, 2008 10:01 AM
JG,
Thank yhou for the Input, I hear you on the percentage terms, makes for a compelling thought: #'s v. %'s
The fascinating Pinker article Tracy W links to above, reporting findings to the effect that human violence had been decreasing over the long, medium, and short term, was the basis for my remarks. This is an astonishing fact, and also pretty puzzling. It seems we're becoming less evil without even trying.
Uh-huh. And Kill Bill Parts 1 & 2 was a spectacular box-office failure, topped only by the complete crash-and-burn spectacle of Saving Private Ryan.
The only difference I see is that we now have on-demand entertainment media completely saturated with violence, so we don't need to burn cats in a French arena or toss undesirables into lions in the colliseum to get it. The appetite is there, but we've found cheaper and more accessible ways of indulging it.
Increased brutality (and poverty) in human history had two causes.
1. One was simply a limited number of resources. The conditions that shaped the Mongol culture just before their entrance on the world stage (and all the subsequent brutality) was one of too many people on a barren steppe fighting and killing for a limited number of resources. There was tremendous survival pressure to participate in raiding, stealing, and under-handed sneakiness simply in order to survive. One tribe only prospered at the expense of another.
2. Another factor is related to the first. I honestly believe that the majority of people, once they know their immediate family is fed and secure, want to be decent to others. However, throughout most of human history, social and political institutions made it easier for the most violent and brutal individuals to rise to the top. Thus, while the majority of people are basically good, those who lead society haven’t been (Napoleon, Shaka Zulu, Mao, Stalin). For example, for much of it’s history, the Ottoman empire anointed as Emperor, whichever prince managed to murder all of his brothers. In Europe, pacifistic, un-ambitious rulers were constantly replaced by, ambitious, violent jerks who were willing to use whatever means necessary to put themselves into power. After putting themselves into power, violence and brutality often became the status quo. There is also the idea (which I do not discuss) that power corrupts.
3. The second factor is related to the first factor in the sense some of the most brutal rulers were often (though not always) the best rulers at taking resources from other tribes and providing for their own tribe in times of limited resources. This idea, along with the constant scarcity of survival resources throughout most of human history made it easy for brutal individuals to maintain positions of power.
There are many things that changed this pattern of brutality in the last few centuries. I think the processes that led us to where we are today are extremely complicated and just saying ‘technology made it happen’ or ‘good people made it happen’ is too simple. However, I explain only a few of the reasons that, in my opinion, led to decrease in brutality below.
1. One is the advent of technologies that have made survival resources more plentiful and made the spread of new ideas and information and ideas (the printing press) much easier. I think technology and the good intentions of many people in recent history form a positive feedback loop that has led to less and less severe brutality in first world nations.
2. Another is the rise of nation states. The advent of nation states meant large, culturally homogeneous geographical areas where trade could take place more easily and contracts did not have to be backed up by one’s own personal army. If John Locke had been born 400 years before he was, whether he was a good or bad person, he would have spent his time defending his castle from other feudal lords and trying to manufacture every resource he needed on his own lands. As it was, he was able to devote his time to developing the ideas of an egalitarian government responsible to its own people and disseminating those ideas through the printing press.
3. Even before the ideas democracy became popular, the ideal of truly honest government became popular in England and the Netherlands at the same time (and probably for the same reasons) the Puritan movement became popular in these countries. For the first time, the idea of taking a bribe or ‘skimming off the top’ became repugnant to many public officials. Even after the Puritans left both England and the Netherlands, Cromwell died, and the theaters were re-opened, this tradition of honest government maintained itself. This tradition of honest government was then passed down to English and Dutch colonies. It is no coincidence that most of the economic powerhouses outside of Europe were once English or Dutch colonies (Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Australia, United States, Canada, South Africa, and Malaysia). Even Zimbabwe, a former British colony, was considered a model of African prosperity and the breadbasket of Africa before Mugabe threw out the old system and destroyed everything. The only exceptions are several Arab states that the British did not rule over for very long and in which a tradition of honest government never came close to being realized. On the other hand, if you look at the old colonies of France, Spain, Germany and Italy, you see poverty, violence and political corruption. Even in Brazil (an old Portuguese colony), the main thing keeping the economy from even more explosive growth is political corruption (and by the way, if you’ve every been to Brazil you’d know that violence and brutality are still very common there).
Look, China is neither communist nor fascist. You got your Mao on your money and your money on your Mao, but he's spinning in his Maosoleum. This isn't your father's yellow peril.
Hardcore Darwinian capitalism is the rule. Thrive or Die. Perhaps "crony capitalism" is more apt - it's all about the guanxi.
It's complicated.
"Formation of ingroups based primarily on personal relationships."
That is a strange way of making analogies between countries. Care to elucidate?
"I'm arguing that while China is still ascendant that it still isn't where America is yet in terms of social organization and capacity for trust of strangers and public concern for public welfare and that this will be reflected in productivity (now and even after China fully industrializes.)"
I don't know how you compare and contrast US trust of strangers vs Chinese trust of strangers. Examples?
I also don't see the relationship between productivity and goodness.
it's all about the guanxi.
That was part of the idea I was attempting to convey, yes. (guanxi = connections for those not up on their mandarin)
Hardcore Darwinian capitalism is the rule.
Certainly, but with heavy industry still in Gov't hands, no? And some severe flexibility in the rule of law.
You know one of the motifs of science fiction is the encounter with other worlds and what that adds to our perception. Certainly in a cultural evolutionary sense this has happened before. There apparently was something about the Greek ecosystem that promoted human adaptation as an individualist and, out of the situation of egalitarian relationships, was promoted an emphasis on empathy; see your earlier discussion of Euripides. That has benefited the formation of subsequent cultures.
Yes, I think a lot of heavy industry is still in government hands, but not all of it. GM Shanghai springs to mind as an example. The PLA runs a lot of factories.
And there's corruption, of course, but China's doesn't stand out as particularly rampant. It's usually ignored, but every few years they crack down on it. And by "crack down" I mean "execute a bunch of people for corruption".
They do have rule of law, but it can be flexible. If you've connections you can evade the law to some extent - but that's true everywhere. Lots of one hand washing the other.
Husband-beating to the point of murder still common, and still mostly OK, though.