Right and Wrong

[Guest Zyx]

I'm pretty sure this title will have repelled anyone not interested. If you are not interested but still reading... wtf???

So this is probably gonna be big, and I might need to be corrected in my reasoning because of the choas that is my mind. So right and wrong, it's complicated. Part of what I'm going to be saying here might not be completely objective but I'll accept anyones views as long as there's sound reasoning behind it. Let's keep the moral questions here on a scale of lets say 20.000 people. Enough to keep things interesting yet not enough for war issues.

So you wake up one day, what do you want? I'd say love, appreciation, freedom, safety, adventure. Just some random thoughts but I think we've hit a pretty sound basis for it. Love because well, everyone wants love. Appreciation because even if you're loved and thus socially in the place you want to be, you'll still want some control over the people around you for comfort. Freedom is an important one that's missing in this world probably even more as love and appreciation: It means you can do whatever you want as long as you abide by certain guidelines which we'll discuss later. Safety is the only thing I'd say is really present in our world, though much to forced upon us. Adventure of course, life is missing here without livelyness. People to my knowledge don't want to sit around on their asses all day long! They just don't have anything better to do.

So how do we accomplish this? Not to sound cliché but it's not that hard if we all work together, in this scenario at least. In our world we'd still have to deal with overpopulation and such. Let's say everyone in our imaginary world works together to love, appreciate and keep everyone safe? This I think, would be no problem at all. But freedom here would mean that you would not even be subject to a government. This wouldn't be needed if everyone worked together for love and such. Of course with every man working for the collective as such there'd need to be rules everyone knew.

-No stealing

-No unprovoked murder

-etc.

Though nothing as strict as we know now. And of course punishments would be needed.

-Banishment

-Death

-Repayment for losses and inconvenience

These seem reasonable punsihments contrary to prison. Though this, as the rules, might be discussed for each individual case. Adventure might seem hard to take care of but with the things we've discussed before people would be perfectly capable of taking care of that. No rules to abide by as such, love and appreciation assuring them mistakes would be forgiven and succesful endeavors rewarded. Everyone's happy no? No, because people will always want something different. Perhaps things impossible, so from here we go from a utopia as a perfect land to a utopia as a nonexistent land. (utopia in greek can mean both perfect and nonexistent land)

In a perfect (though fictional) world I think there'd still be rules of honour one must abide by. Strangely the bible seems to sum them up pretty nicely:

* Lust (Latin, luxuria)

Love is more important than lust so cheating is a definate no-no and the rest I'll let you figure out on your own.

* Gluttony (Latin, gula)

Gluttony is wrong because too much of a thing good for you will spoil you (though people often think it's just about food)

* Greed (Latin, avaritia)

Greed is wrong because sharing with others will make not only their lives better but yours as well.

* Sloth (Latin, acedia)

Sloth is extremely bad becasue you won't live unless you experience things.

* Wrath (Latin, ira)

Wrath is wrong you'll just increase suffering, instead work towards limiting it.

Killing someone to protect others is still ok.

* Envy (Latin, invidia)

Probably the hardest to avoid but in a perfect world all you'd have to do is work towards the same goal.

In a perfect world there'd be nothing out of reach.

* Pride (Latin, superbia)

The father of all sins for all sins come forth from the illusion it's your choice to make.

Sloth would seem to oppose this sin but in fact: if you are not proud you'll see your duty and sloth would keep you from that duty.

Others might see a perfect world as an eternal orgie but this allows for change and that's all that life is about.

Substance over pleasure. These rules apply in the real world too but it might just make your life worse there....

(excuse me if this made no sense at all, there's always that risk with things I write)

[foeofthelance]

*Sniffs the air*

Eh? Someone is planning a man-made utopia? Again?

*Clears throat, cracks knuckles, and stretches.*

Hold on to your hats ladies and gentlemen. There's debating to be done!

Now, for the sake of convenience, I'm going to intersperse my replies with what I'm replying to. Needless to say I got a few things I disagree with you on when it comes to all of this, and think I can point out where you are making a few key mistakes. Not to say it isn't a bad idea trying to live in peace and harmony, just that as soon as your definition disagrees with someone else's you've already failed. Now, on with the argument!

So you wake up one day, what do you want? I'd say love, appreciation, freedom, safety, adventure. Just some random thoughts but I think we've hit a pretty sound basis for it. Love because well, everyone wants love. Appreciation because even if you're loved and thus socially in the place you want to be, you'll still want some control over the people around you for comfort. Freedom is an important one that's missing in this world probably even more as love and appreciation: It means you can do whatever you want as long as you abide by certain guidelines which we'll discuss later. Safety is the only thing I'd say is really present in our world, though much to forced upon us. Adventure of course, life is missing here without livelyness. People to my knowledge don't want to sit around on their asses all day long! They just don't have anything better to do.

First mistake! Determining that everyone has the same goals, and defines those goals in the same way. Love I'll take, and appreciation as well. Decent enough things. I care about people, and want to be recognized for my efforts on behalf of myself and those I strive for. Not quite sure I want some form of control over them, though, especially since I sure as hell don't want anyone to have that much control over me. (To me there is a difference between following the laws because they are the law, and following the laws because the consequences aren't appealing.) Freedom now, that's a good thing. Something to be a little wary of, since if I have total freedom then I'm sure my neighbor has total freedom, and one of us might just be inclined to abuse that if we got into a disagreement. Safety I don't mind so much, so long as it doesn't interfere with my comings and goings. As for adventure, forget about it! I know adventure, and it ain't pretty. Adventure is sleeping in the mud because the tent sprung a leak. Adventure is pissing your pants in terror, but charging bravely forward to avoid getting crushed by the guys behind you. Give me a good cup of tea, a nice book, and a comfy couch. That's how I want to spend my days.

So how do we accomplish this? Not to sound cliché but it's not that hard if we all work together, in this scenario at least. In our world we'd still have to deal with overpopulation and such. Let's say everyone in our imaginary world works together to love, appreciate and keep everyone safe? This I think, would be no problem at all. But freedom here would mean that you would not even be subject to a government. This wouldn't be needed if everyone worked together for love and such. Of course with every man working for the collective as such there'd need to be rules everyone knew.

-No stealing

-No unprovoked murder

-etc.

So wait, there's no government...but there's a collective? And it has rules? Who is going to be enforcing these rules? If everyone was willing to follow them in the first place, we wouldn't need them, they'd be instinctive. And how do we determine who broke the rules? Or will we just be accepting any accusation? In that case my neighbor (the one with 90" HD tv, not the one with the old black and white box) stole my tv!

Though nothing as strict as we know now. And of course punishments would be needed.

-Banishment

-Death

-Repayment for losses and inconvenience

These seem reasonable punsihments contrary to prison. Though this, as the rules, might be discussed for each individual case. Adventure might seem hard to take care of but with the things we've discussed before people would be perfectly capable of taking care of that. No rules to abide by as such, love and appreciation assuring them mistakes would be forgiven and succesful endeavors rewarded. Everyone's happy no? No, because people will always want something different. Perhaps things impossible, so from here we go from a utopia as a perfect land to a utopia as a nonexistent land. (utopia in greek can mean both perfect and nonexistent land)

Again, there's no government, but there are punishments? Who decides which one gets handed down? Who enforces them and carries them out? Who is going to be protecting me against vigilantes? I know I can count on my good friends Smith and Wesson, but they sleep when I do. There's a reason why people use the 'non-existant' definition.

* Lust (Latin, luxuria)

Love is more important than lust so cheating is a definate no-no and the rest I'll let you figure out on your own.

Define 'cheating'. My girlfriend and I have already had it out over this one. I define it as exchanging physical intimacies with another. She defines it as merely being physical, or forming an emotional attachment. Whose definition do we use?

* Gluttony (Latin, gula)

Gluttony is wrong because too much of a thing good for you will spoil you (though people often think it's just about food)

This one I actually agree with.

* Greed (Latin, avaritia)

Greed is wrong because sharing with others will make not only their lives better but yours as well.

Why the hell should I share? That deprives me of time spent with my own belongings. Wouldn't it make more sense to instead aid my neighbors in acquiring their own possessions? Admittedly, food and such should be shared in time of famine to preserve the species, but my books are my books, and I want to read them when I want to.

* Sloth (Latin, acedia)

Sloth is extremely bad becasue you won't live unless you experience things.

* Wrath (Latin, ira)

Wrath is wrong you'll just increase suffering, instead work towards limiting it.

Killing someone to protect others is still ok.

How will wrath increase suffering? All you have to do is make sure you destroy the individual's family as well as the individual. If you're willing to go for one, I don't see why you shouldn't finish the job.

* Envy (Latin, invidia)

Probably the hardest to avoid but in a perfect world all you'd have to do is work towards the same goal.

In a perfect world there'd be nothing out of reach.

If everything was so easy to get, what would the point be? People need to want something before they will try and earn it. Seeing others with it will just motivate them to work harder.

* Pride (Latin, superbia)

The father of all sins for all sins come forth from the illusion it's your choice to make.

Sloth would seem to oppose this sin but in fact: if you are not proud you'll see your duty and sloth would keep you from that duty.

Excuse me? How can you demand recognition for your efforts and then claim to not be proud? I believe the term you may have meant was 'conceited'. There is conceit, where a man boasts of an ability that he does not have. Then there is arrogance, where a man boasts of the abilities that he has. And then there is pride, where a man exercises his abilities, but does need to make them known to others, allowing them to speak for themselves. Pride is the bedrock of human nature, it is what drives us. We want to feel proud, we want to make others proud of our accomplisments and of knowing us. This does not prevent us from knowing our duty, let alone doing it. Instead it provokes us into doing quite the opposite, for there is no pride in the failing of others, only in success and achieving the goals laid out before us!

[PorkChopExpress86]

Going to have to agree with Foe here. Utopias only exist in fiction and rarely even there. Anarchy doesn't work because it creates a situation in which on one is accountable for their own actions until they piss off enough people. Eventualy you get mob rule which is equally dangerous because of the so called tyranny of the majority. Anyone who is different ends up dead. Next someone takes control of the mob and a dictatoriship forms. If enough generations pass and the people are convinced that a single person rules by virtue of their birth you have a monarchy. Monarchies break down over time because people want to reassert their own independance but, remembering the chaos of anarchy and mob rule, agree to form govorning laws that can be equitably applied. Any number of things can happen after that but all of them have a government of some kind. You can't do without it on any large scale of people.

Now onto the seven deadly sins... Who gets to define them?

Is lust just cheating? How do you have cheating if there is no government to sanction two people getting together? Couldn't one argue that they are simply exercising their freedom by sleeping around?

The same with gluttony. Who are you to say that too much is too much? You'd damn sure better not be the government, cause we're trying to abolish it here. I seem to remember we set up this society so that we could all be happy without big brother watching over me. Maybe eating non stop makes me happy. Maybe playing playstation until 6 in the morning makes me happy.

Same example with greed, who are you to say I don't need all the cattle or all the land? My family isn't comfortable unless we have the security of having more land then anyone else in case of famine.

Sloth; again you're trying to impose your view of a good life on me. Sleeping all day and avoiding work may be just what I want.

Couldn't my righteous indignation be on such a high level that it is indistinguishable from wrath? If something so moves me to violently reject it, i'm making the world a better place for me.

As has been stated, envy might just motivate me to go out and get what i want. But since there is no one telling me i can't, i may just take it from you.

Pride is a bullshit sin anyway. The catholics created it to keep their followers subservient to their god. You aren't supposed to be proud because ultimatley nothing you did was yours to claim anyway, it was a gift from god.

Instead of conjecturing on a fantasy world that simply won't happen, work to ensure that the government exists only for what it was intended. That is to say

1) impartially judging all citizens according to the same interpretation of the laws

2) limiting their actions only in so far as they would infringe on the basic rights of their fellow men.

3) providing for the common defense against foreign countries

4) allowing for free trade and easy movement between the states

5) protecting the right of the citizenry to seek lawful retribution when wronged from either their fellow citizens or their government

[Calanthee]

I'm pretty sure this title will have repelled anyone not interested. If you are not interested but still reading... wtf???

So this is probably gonna be big, and I might need to be corrected in my reasoning because of the choas that is my mind. So right and wrong, it's complicated. Part of what I'm going to be saying here might not be completely objective but I'll accept anyones views as long as there's sound reasoning behind it. Let's keep the moral questions here on a scale of lets say 20.000 people. Enough to keep things interesting yet not enough for war issues.

So you wake up one day, what do you want? I'd say love, appreciation, freedom, safety, adventure. Just some random thoughts but I think we've hit a pretty sound basis for it. Love because well, everyone wants love. Appreciation because even if you're loved and thus socially in the place you want to be, you'll still want some control over the people around you for comfort. Freedom is an important one that's missing in this world probably even more as love and appreciation: It means you can do whatever you want as long as you abide by certain guidelines which we'll discuss later. Safety is the only thing I'd say is really present in our world, though much to forced upon us. Adventure of course, life is missing here without livelyness. People to my knowledge don't want to sit around on their asses all day long! They just don't have anything better to do.

So how do we accomplish this? Not to sound cliché but it's not that hard if we all work together, in this scenario at least. In our world we'd still have to deal with overpopulation and such. Let's say everyone in our imaginary world works together to love, appreciate and keep everyone safe? This I think, would be no problem at all. But freedom here would mean that you would not even be subject to a government. This wouldn't be needed if everyone worked together for love and such. Of course with every man working for the collective as such there'd need to be rules everyone knew.

-No stealing

-No unprovoked murder

-etc.

Though nothing as strict as we know now. And of course punishments would be needed.

-Banishment

-Death

-Repayment for losses and inconvenience

These seem reasonable punsihments contrary to prison. Though this, as the rules, might be discussed for each individual case. Adventure might seem hard to take care of but with the things we've discussed before people would be perfectly capable of taking care of that. No rules to abide by as such, love and appreciation assuring them mistakes would be forgiven and succesful endeavors rewarded. Everyone's happy no? No, because people will always want something different. Perhaps things impossible, so from here we go from a utopia as a perfect land to a utopia as a nonexistent land. (utopia in greek can mean both perfect and nonexistent land)

In a perfect (though fictional) world I think there'd still be rules of honour one must abide by. Strangely the bible seems to sum them up pretty nicely:

* Lust (Latin, luxuria)

Love is more important than lust so cheating is a definate no-no and the rest I'll let you figure out on your own.

* Gluttony (Latin, gula)

Gluttony is wrong because too much of a thing good for you will spoil you (though people often think it's just about food)

* Greed (Latin, avaritia)

Greed is wrong because sharing with others will make not only their lives better but yours as well.

* Sloth (Latin, acedia)

Sloth is extremely bad becasue you won't live unless you experience things.

* Wrath (Latin, ira)

Wrath is wrong you'll just increase suffering, instead work towards limiting it.

Killing someone to protect others is still ok.

* Envy (Latin, invidia)

Probably the hardest to avoid but in a perfect world all you'd have to do is work towards the same goal.

In a perfect world there'd be nothing out of reach.

* Pride (Latin, superbia)

The father of all sins for all sins come forth from the illusion it's your choice to make.

Sloth would seem to oppose this sin but in fact: if you are not proud you'll see your duty and sloth would keep you from that duty.

Others might see a perfect world as an eternal orgie but this allows for change and that's all that life is about.

Substance over pleasure. These rules apply in the real world too but it might just make your life worse there....

(excuse me if this made no sense at all, there's always that risk with things I write)

I hate to discourage your Heavenly Peaceful theme Park, All People are not rational or logical nor do they seek a peaceful world, it will bore them out of their mind... a true rebel will break all your rules, one by one just for the sake of breaking them... and he will enjoy breaking them very much for he is not passive... he think only of I and what he wants. He has no desire to be a team player. His personal goals are; Lust, greed, and violence... and he gets off on them. He would laugh at your so-called honor... he is both the sin and sinner, chaos in the flesh, internal violator of perfection.

Would you try to destroy all those who would rebel against you? Ergo Kill for Peace!

Better to seek a causual balance between the dark and light or the right and wrong... a clean perfect society is weak, for the Laughing Lord of Fate and the Universe will alway try to bring it down around the ears of its creator until nothing is left, simply for daring to compete with him!

Truly it's much better to seek a society just a little bit better than the one before, and you might catch that naughty Mr Fate napping, or perhaps he's away on holiday for a time!

[Guest Zyx]

Yeah, I dunno what I was trying to accomplish with this thread but obviously we disagree so I'll leave it at that.

[canterro]

I think utopia is not to be achieved not because rules are vague but because they are hard to obey.

It's all between egoism and altruism and it'll never be the case that altruism beats egoism in every person

[foeofthelance]

Yeah, I dunno what I was trying to accomplish with this thread but obviously we disagree so I'll leave it at that.

Zyx, even if I agreed with you, and I do on some points, I still would have posted my reply in the exact same manner. You won't get Utopia from some guy just standing up and going, "This will make the world perfect! We must do it!" unless some other guy has the balls to stand up next and say, "Shut up before I bust a cap into your ass!". From there you just let everyone pick sides and hammer it out between them. That's basically waht we're doing, sans gunfire.

[greenwizard]

Whether we want to admit it or not, we are nothing but animals that have aposable thumbs that can talk. We are driven by the same instincts all animals are driven by. There is no way on god's green earth that so many individuals will get along harmoniosly.

And as far as sins; yeah, the Catholics invented them to keep people in line. I myself see the world much differently. In my view, the only real sins are rape, murder, and suicide. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Murder can be justified in some cases. I guess my point here is that not everyone sees things the same way so saying that no one can commit this list of things pretty much is a government.

My moral compass is probably much different than yours. I am in a pretty much constant state of lust. I just don't sleep around because I take sex very seriously. I can't do it with someone I don't have feelings for. And yet I know someone who fucked eight bikers in one day. I view that as very wrong, but is it really my right to say what she can and can't do with her body?

I don't see anything wrong with shoplifting from wal-mart, because it is a giant corperation that's killing the economy and is run by a bunch of rich and greedy assholes. However, I do think it is wrong to steal a little old lady's purse.

So in a perfect society, who decides what is wrong and what is right?

[Psychostorm]

There is no right and wrong, these are just subjective concepts created by man for his own convenience. Morality has and will always be a thing that fluctuates and changes based upon the needs of society. Many of us look back and in our arrogance, judge those who came before us who lived by very different codes of morality.

The Aztecs tore the hearts out of living people for their sun god and it was considered a great honor to die that way. The Romans had people fight to the death in arenas for entertainment. The Vikings pillaged and raped other villages and to them it was just a way of life. In Greece pedophilia and homosexuality were the part of the norm. In parts of the Pacific cannibalism was practiced.

Morality should not be looked upon as something that is inflexible and ridged. It should be allowed to change and adapt as humans have over the years to their environment. The concept of "right and wrong", is not a constant and should not be held above "cause and effect" which is.

And on the topic of utopias, human nature will always be the monkey wrench that ruins any such attempt as long as humans exist in their current state. Do I think humans can evolve to overcome the aspects of human nature that hold us back? Possibly. Though I do think it would be more likely through artificial germline engineering than through traditional evolution. Check out "Redesigning Humans: Choosing our genes, changing our future" by Gregory Stock, its a bit wordy but a great read if you're interested in such things. So yeah, I think utopia is possible, just not at this stage of human development.

But then again, maybe it would be impossible to reach that level without sacrificing everything makes us human in the first place.

[Guest Agaib]

The Aztecs tore the hearts out of living people for their sun god and it was considered a great honor to die that way. The Romans had people fight to the death in arenas for entertainment. The Vikings pillaged and raped other villages and to them it was just a way of life. In Greece pedophilia and homosexuality were the part of the norm. In parts of the Pacific cannibalism was practiced.

If I remember correctly the Aztecs tore the hearts out of slaves, people they captured in battle, and tributes given to them by other tribes. It wasn't a great honor to be killed that way, for many it was a terrifying prospect. However, the act itself was considered moral by many Aztecs because they feared the sun would cease to rise without tributes to sustain it.

Regardless, every person makes a decision for themselves about what is moral. Before they make that decision, however, they need to establish what they want to accomplish with their definition. Many people choose social convenience as their goal, and so they adopt the predominantly accepted morality within their social circle. Doing that allows them to live comfortably. Others are not satisfied with mere social convenience. Some people have other goals. Some may define morals in a way that they think makes it easiest for them to justify taking what they want. Some may define it so that it falls in line with their delusions, if they're mentally ill. Others might define it as altruism. The problem comes when two people, who are trying to accomplish fundamentally different goals with their definition of right and wrong try to convince each other of whether or not a specific action is right or wrong without first reconciling their fundamentally different premise for how right and wrong is decided. Also problems frequently arise when people disagree on what is the most advantageous, or altruistic, action.

The point is, humanity as a whole will never agree together on what the purpose of right and wrong is. To make matters more confusing, someone might claim that the purpose of their definition of right and wrong is altruism, when it isn't (it might actually be based on religious doctrine). At that point, when religion transcends altruism in importance people being to conflate religious morals and apply claims of altruism to them in order give the idea a good spin. Even worse, some people will decide that their goal is merely to harm or kill others, which makes it impossible to convince them otherwise without them allowing themselves to be convinced.

This is one of My problems with religion I guess, because I feel like it confuses altruism with religious doctrine.

I think most people in the world have some level of altruism. The problem is, if they're in impoverished circumstances, their altruism will be eclipsed by a desire to survive. A social species like humanity, back in the cave man days, could better survive if there was a natural urge for communal aid. At first I'm sure that it was mostly confined to familial groups. People are naturally hard wired to, in general, care for their family. (Keep in mind that because these are very general statements, I'm only talking about trends. Not everyone loves their mother.) The thing is, there isn't one powerful reliable objective method that the human body can naturally use to determine "who is family" and "who is not family." For this reason, our desire for familial altruism is frequently extended to our fellow man. However, the basic doctrine of evolution is that properties more vital to survival and reproduction take a higher priority and are selected for. Its for this reason that people will first, try to survive, and then help others to survive.

If you did an experiment on everyone in the world and took them into a room where there was a green button, and a red button. And you told all of the subjects of the experiment that pressing the green button would mean that they helped someone, and that pressing the red button would mean they would hurt someone. Furthermore, there would be no consequences for either decision, and the only effort required would be enough to reach out and press the button. Most people would press the green button. A few would press the red. A few others would refuse to press the button.

Anyway, I guess my point is that most people in the world have a desire to be altruistic and propagate a utopia that made people happy, but that desire is often defeated by personal circumstances, personal desires, and religious beliefs. Its because of those things that I don't think a Utopia could ever really work. But its nice to think about.

[PorkChopExpress86]

If you did an experiment on everyone in the world and took them into a room where there was a green button, and a red button. And you told all of the subjects of the experiment that pressing the green button would mean that they helped someone, and that pressing the red button would mean they would hurt someone. Furthermore, there would be no consequences for either decision, and the only effort required would be enough to reach out and press the button. Most people would press the green button. A few would press the red. A few others would refuse to press the button.

They've done this. It's called the Milgram Experiment and the results were just the opposite.

http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm

In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual was asked to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He was introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explained that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner" (or "student"). Lots were drawn to determine roles, and it was decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."

The "learner" (student) was then taken to a room where he was strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode was placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" was taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" was instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" got the answer correct, then they moved on to the next word. If the answer was incorrect, the "teacher" was supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.

The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches were labeled "XXX". The "teacher" was supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" missed a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" was actually an actor who never experienced the shocks. (The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the "learner.")

After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about a heart condition, all responses by the "learner" ceased. At times, the worried "teacher" questioned the "experimenter," asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the "experimenter" assumed full responsibility, the "teacher" seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

Results

Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical but, it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would inflict cruelty is disproven. Findings showed that, "two-thirds of this study's participants fall into the category of "obedient" subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes (Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View)." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

Milgram wrote about his findings in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims. Authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

[Guest Agaib]

I'm fully aware of the Milgram experiment and using it as an example represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what I mentioned. In the Milgram experiment people were offered money, thus causing them to feel obligated to obey the leader of the experiment. The test subjects were pressured to continue the experiment. The example I proposed would have no incentives either way.

What the Milgram experiment demonstrated was the desire to obey authority of humans was more important to most people. When people are put into a situation where they have a superior pressuring them to take a specific action, even if there is no reasonable punishment, many people will behave as if they will be punished for disobedience.

My point wasn't that everyone wants to always do the right thing always. My point was that people, more often than not, desire to help each other. Unfortunately this desire is eclipsed by our various fears and comforts. In this way the Milgram experiment demonstrated my point quite well, because when people did continue the experiment they behaved as if they were very uncomfortable with it.

EDIT: The article you linked gives a very poor description of the Milgram experiment in My opinion. It doesn't mention the various ways the test subjects were pressured into continuing after voicing their concerns.

[PorkChopExpress86]

My point wasn't that everyone wants to always do the right thing always. My point was that people, more often than not, desire to help each other. Unfortunately this desire is eclipsed by our various fears and comforts. In this way the Milgram experiment demonstrated my point quite well, because when people did continue the experiment they behaved as if they were very uncomfortable with it.

EDIT: The article you linked gives a very poor description of the Milgram experiment in My opinion. It doesn't mention the various ways the test subjects were pressured into continuing after voicing their concerns.

Everyone wants to help each other? I dunno, have you seen /b/? I'd agree with you to a point. I think most people want to help others who are like themselves. When it comes to other groups an "us against them" mentality develops pretty quickly.

I just scanned the article, I knew what it was and just posted the first non-wikipedia link i saw.

[Guest Agaib]

Not everyone wants to help each other. I tried to stress that My little theory was based on trends. I'm not so naive that I think everyone in the world has the best in mind for the others.

I think the "us vs. them" happens when you stop thinking of other groups as human. Once you stop thinking of people outside of your group as human, it does become very easy for a person to do horrible things. I have seen /b/, and I'll admit that it probably stands as a counter example that someone might use. However, I think it would be foolish to think that /b/ was representative of the general population. Weird people attract weird people after all.

[PorkChopExpress86]

Not everyone wants to help each other. I tried to stress that My little theory was based on trends. I'm not so naive that I think everyone in the world has the best in mind for the others.

I think the "us vs. them" happens when you stop thinking of other groups as human. Once you stop thinking of people outside of your group as human, it does become very easy for a person to do horrible things. I have seen /b/, and I'll admit that it probably stands as a counter example that someone might use. However, I think it would be foolish to think that /b/ was representative of the general population. Weird people attract weird people after all.

lol, i didn't mean to suggest that /b/ was representative of anything. just a very interesting look at how soceity breaks down when there is anonymity and no rules.

[Psychostorm]

If I remember correctly the Aztecs tore the hearts out of slaves, people they captured in battle, and tributes given to them by other tribes. It wasn't a great honor to be killed that way, for many it was a terrifying prospect. However, the act itself was considered moral by many Aztecs because they feared the sun would cease to rise without tributes to sustain it.

Even though it was slaves and prisoners most of the time, it was still considered an honor. There is an account of one slave who escaped but then returned to be sacrificed because he though that it would be an honor. Also the first recorded sacrifice was of the daughter of King Coxcox, it wasn't always just prisoners or slaves.

The boy who was to be sacrificed at the Tezcatlipoca temple during the month of Toxcatl was treated like the Aztec equivalent of a rock star. For a year before his sacrifice he was dressd up like the god Tezcatlipoca and got to have 4 of the most beautiful women as his "companions". People would literally bow down to him as he passed in the streets. The day of his sacrifice was accompinied by a huge festival.

The whole human sacrifice thing in the Aztec culture was based on a feeling of indebtedness to the gods who continually sacrificed themselves to bring stability to the universe or some such crap. They also sacrificed animals and plants and inanimate objects, humans were the highest form of sacrifice though.

Some people also would cut themselves or blood themselves on thorns and offer that as a sacrifice. Sometimes they would even impale knives and bones through various parts of their bodies to repay their debt to the gods. Also some sort of special sacrifice happened every 52 years to stabilize the universe or something. The victim of this was immolated.

[Guest Agaib]

Very interesting. It seems to me that the honor of being sacrificed depended on the occasion for the sacrifice, and the religiousness of the sacrifice-ee.

Equation: (Holiness of Day)*(Religiousness)-(gruesomeness of method)=(amount of honor obtained)

[Psychostorm]

Yeah pretty much. Its an interesting subject and I'm glad I had reason to research it, it should come in handy in a fic at some point.