In 1971,
Stanford University professor Phillip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison
Experiment, assigning half of a group of 24 young, white males as prisoners and
the other half as guards. He found that the group of “guards” quickly and
barbarously became power-hungry and abusive towards the prisoners, starving
them, taking away beds and other necessities, and otherwise psychologically
“tormenting” them. Zimbardo blamed this sudden and catastrophic turn of events
on the prisoners and guards’ “internalization” of their assigned roles, he
himself falling victim to the psychological effects of the experiment. This
experiment, it could be argued, proved humans’ natural tendency towards evil
when faced with the choice. It certainly shows our capacity for it.
However, if
humans only have a capacity for evil, how can you explain the concept of
altruism at all? In an landmark study by the University of North Carolina and
Virginia, psychologists found that when displayed a “strong display of virtue”,
people are psychologically triggered to emulate these actions. Furthermore,
when people were shown three different videos (one of moral goodness, one of
someone showing off a skill, and another of a comedian telling a joke to
rousing applause), the vast majority of people wanted to” emulate the act of
goodness than wanted to dunk like Michael
Jordan”. Even if humans aren’t naturally wired for goodness (per Darwinism),
we certainly try hard.
Part of the
draw of movies and stories like Star Wars is the clear line between good and
evil. However, real life just isn’t that simple. But as long as we’re working
towards being better, proving the cynics wrong, true "evil" can’t exist at all.
Maybe its time to start accepting today’s world of gray areas and question
marks, instead of living in a time long, long, ago in a galaxy far, far away.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.