I made this more complicated than it needed to be by inserting the word "personal" infront of morality. I'll try to state my thoughts clearly;

In situations such as Zimbardo's experiment (under the assumption it was carried out legitimately), external pressure often prevails over a person's ideas of morality. The reason I don't like the connotation "preference" in the context of morality is that it implies the person decides what is good and evil, which foregoes the purpose of morality, in my view.

I find the idea that the interpretation of external circumstance, based on personal values, is the driving force of human behaviour. — Shamshir

I'm not sure why you used the word "values" here, which I find more related to personal preference and not to morality.

This isn't entirely fair, since the articles that were linked question the premise I have shared. But if the wish is to debate on Zimbardo's scientific rigour or lack thereof, then that's fair enough.

Isn't personal morality a circumstance, and the most determining circumstance at that? — Shamshir

I suppose I could've specified external circumstance, but I thought this was self-evident in the context of the discussion.

This is debatable. — boethius

What is?

The premise that human behavior relies a lot more on circumstance than it does on personal morality?

I don't think that's up for debate. I think that is common knowledge.

Though, that doesn't mean personal morality never plays a role, or that humans are fundamentally incapable of moral behavior.

Which, if it's already proven by history a competent critical thinker would say "this provides strictly no new information, it was purely a superfluous demonstration of what we already know". — boethius

Clearly a demonstration could provide further insight into the phenomenon, but I am not up to speed with Zimbardo's intentions nor am I trying to defend him.

You seem to be arguing with no one. — boethius

Hello no one.

But I guess I'm done here, then.

The functional utility of Zimbardo's narrative is to present human nature as so fickle, so dependent on circumstance, that we have barely any moral agency at all ... well, at least when working for the state, to both coddle and excuse the sadist, which there seems to be good taped indication that Zimbardo has an unhealthy obsession about. — boethius

I don't know about the latter part of this sentence, but as for the part I underlined;

History provides that image of human nature. Zimbardo tried to demonstrate it through his experiment. If his experiment is based on lies, it was a bad demonstration, but it doesn't change the image history provides.

The issue is that Zimbardo, and others sympathetic to his cause, uses the experiment to make claims much stronger than:

"Ordinary people can do bad things under the right circumstances." — boethius

Well, that is clearly an issue if they cannot support their claims.

My gripe is specifically with the sentiment that the theory of man's fickle morality relies on Zimbardo.

"The appeal of the Stanford prison experiment seems to go deeper than its scientific validity, perhaps because it tells us a story about ourselves that we desperately want to believe: that we, as individuals, cannot really be held accountable for the sometimes reprehensible things we do. As troubling as it might seem to accept Zimbardo’s fallen vision of human nature, it is also profoundly liberating. It means we’re off the hook. Our actions are determined by circumstance. Our fallibility is situational. Just as the Gospel promised to absolve us of our sins if we would only believe, the SPE offered a form of redemption tailor-made for a scientific era, and we embraced it."

This is what the writer, perhaps among other things, takes issue with.

The climate has been changing since forever and no amount of hysteria is going to change that. Similarly, doomsday rhetoric has been around since man first saw the sun going down over the horizon, unsure whether it would rise again.

Then its implications were missed. The article seems to take issue with the "Zimbardo-narrative," which I understand to be the narrative that claims ordinary people can do bad things under the right circumstances. This narrative doesn't require Zimbardo as proof, since history is filled to the brim with examples that support it.

Hmmm.. I think delusions are actually destructive towards happiness. Delusions don't make one happy, but rather ignorant. Ignorance is a sort of limbo, wherein one is not truly happy nor truly sad. For most people this state of ignorance cannot be maintained forever. Reality always finds a way. When reality starts catching up to a psyche that has grown too attached to its delusions, thats when one will reap the consequences, usually with interest. I believe this is closely linked to depression.

What these attacks seem to miss, is the fact that these experiments sought to better understand events that had already happened.

They didn't seek to prove that regular people can exhibit extreme behavior under certain circumstances. This already seemed evident.

The critics seem to take issue with the aforementioned theory on the basis that the experiment was a sham or not carried out properly, but the theory doesn't require these experiments at all. The historical list of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to other people is long and well-documented.

Without the consent and against the protests of the patient herself, the doctor sedated the woman then administered a lethal injection while the family held her down. — NOS4A2

I am not against euthanasia, but this gives me a very uneasy feeling in my stomach.

Moreover, it seems like a slippery slope to me.

Firstly, who decides a person is 'too far gone' to renounce their intention of wanting to be euthanized? When is it too late for a change of heart? Who is to say the change of heart isn't genuine? Especially around a matter like death, I don't find it unthinkable that people would not want to go through with it.

Secondly, the power that a person's relatives have in this situation is also uncanny. They can claim to know a person better than the doctor. They can even claim to know a person better than the person themselves, since they are suffering from dementia. Very scary to think what happens when the relatives have an agenda that differs from the person's best interests.

it only takes a single counterexample to refute your original claim. — S

I'm still waiting.

And do come with something tangible rather than insults and opinions.

First of all, beliefs aren't chosen. — S

I disagree, but this is a different topic.

Secondly, the obvious difference between believing the one compared to believing the other consists in how gullible you are. The religious text is about an implausible supernatural event, and the historical account is of a plausible natural event. You'd have to be really gullible to believe the former, whereas the latter is reasonable to believe. — S

Well, this is a mess.

Firstly, gullible, plausible, reasonable, are all subjective terms and cannot form the objective distinction you seek to make, unless further specified.

Secondly, not all theists are gullible. Similarly, atheists are not necessarily not gullible. Similarly, not all religious texts are implausible (i.e. a man named Jesus probably existed), and not all historical accounts are plausible (i.e. Herodotus's claim that the Persians numbered over two million at Thermopylae).

Your statement is an ill-disguised "They are stupid and we are smart!", and this will not do.

If the difference is so obvious, please show it to me.

As far as I am concerned, in both cases one is reading words and choosing to believe them or not.

If you think it's so absurd, you probably haven't deliberated upon the subject enough.

You know that logo at the top, what does it say? It doesn't say, "The Science Forum", does it? — S

What's wrong with you?

Secondly, NO law of physics can ever be proved; because every law of physics is a historically contingent approximation, good to a few decimal places, to the results of the experiments we're capable of doing at any given level of technology. — fishfry

Well said!

It depends on how far you go back. Reason-based thought on the topic of morality and its causes isn't unique to modern thinkers. Buddhists, Stoics, Pythagoreans, Platonists, Neo-Platonists (among which also Jews and early Christians), to name a few. Much of this came from ancient Greece, but it is probable that the Egyptians developed similar philosophies long before the Greeks started writing them down.

What is interesting is that quite a few of these philosophies do not talk about evil, only about the Good. And the Good is often linked to a search for objective reality, which leads to happiness or bliss, or enlightenment. Evil, in these philosophies, is almost synonymous to ignorance.

In this line of thought, the cause of the Good is reality itself, and the cause of the "evil" (though not called that) ignorance thereof.

I'm not missing the point. I'm pointing out that the OP is generalizing things that cannot be generalized. Such is bad practice, for it carries a message, thus deserves to be called out. Moreover, this particular offense seems to be endemic on this forum.

He is using it in a general way, talking about something common to most/all religions, a moral framework...what? Whats the problem? — DingoJones

The reason (why1?) was that God demanded it and God was the supreme moral authority. However, it didn't stop there. Religion also answered or attempted to answer why2? and stated in clear terms that all evil was caused by Satan, the Devil. — TheMadFool

The idea of God as a supreme moral authority and Satan being the cause of all evil is 'something common to most/all religions'? Really all its common to is Christianity.

For the love of.... Could the people of this forum for once stop talking about this monolithic "RELIGION" like all the world's religious and spiritual traditions are the same?

Any and all moral theories have utterly failed to make humans gravitate towards the good and away from the bad. — TheMadFool

I disagree. Some have helped me greatly.

On the topic of CCTV; righteousness in thoughts and action constitutes a good man, is what Marcus Aurelius would say. In other words, if an external force is what is withholding one from committing an immoral act, one cannot be said to be moral at all.

I think we are straying from the point.

My point is that whether one reads a religious text or a historical text, one is believing written words. What people then do with those newly found beliefs is a different matter.

No history book offers supernatural and unlikely creatures like talking serpents and donkeys. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yet, many history books contain inaccuracies, politicized sentiments or even indoctrination. History is written by the victor; a common axiom. Thus there is just as well a chance you're reading fairy tales while reading a history book.

Historians stay in the real world while the religious hide behind a supernatural shield. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Historians stay in the past. An important distinction. Unverifiable, and in that sense imaginary. Even the most well intentioned historian or archaeologist could be completely wrong in their conclusions about the past, not to mention those with an agenda.

A historian will argue his points with facts while the religious argue their points without facts. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not necessarily true. Historians, different from archaeologists, tend to base their theories on secondary sources. Written accounts and texts. Are those facts? I think not.

It is also true that the historical claims suit a particular religious worldview. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Some, maybe. Certainly not all. Simple example; China claims Taiwan and the South China Sea on the basis of her historical empire. That has nothing to do with religion.

I am reading them and understanding at least what they are attempting to advance as a viable model which explains what we see. — A Gnostic Agnostic

That is no different from what a person who reads religious scriptures would say.

If people started spilling blood over criticisms of Adolph Hitler, Adolph Hitler would be an idol that is worshiped by idol worshipers. — A Gnostic Agnostic

Many people were killed over criticism of Hitler. This just introduces another form of belief. Ideology.

I didn't really understand the point you were trying to make, but if you boil it down to this:

Are they willing to spill blood over it? — A Gnostic Agnostic

History is filled with people willing to spill blood over historical claims.

In fact, I'd argue there is no difference between believing religious scripture and historical accounts.

When reading a history book, aren't we believing the words of the writer? And doesn't that writer believe events happened a certain way? So we are believing the beliefs of the writer! There's even a good chance that the writer of the book got his beliefs from someone else's beliefs.

It seems that if we choose to be critical about beliefs, that has a lot of implications about the things we think we know.

Anecdotal information, while interesting, has little value as compared to stats and the evils that the majority continue to do. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I put more value in my own observations and personal experiences. Statistics can be (ab)used for anything, and as a result I'm rather skeptical of those. Especially when they concern purported "evils of the majority".

Do you consider there to be a difference between believing religious scripture and believing the text in a history book?

What small % of Christianity is not homophobic and misogynous in your estimation? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

100% of the Christians I have met in my personal life.

I voted no, but this comes with an important caveat.

In these sorts of discussions it is usually assumed that the belief that is being questioned must be connected with some form of religion. What tends to be overlooked is the fact that most of the things we consider we know, are actually beliefs as well.

if we are to take a critical stance towards religious beliefs, why not all beliefs?

That's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that when one is looking for a definition of God that most of the world's religions, etc. can agree on, one is bound to end up with something vague. Yet, it is still accurate.

Nebulous is what one will get if one seeks a general definition of God. It is what most of the world's religions, philosophies and spiritual traditions will be able to agree upon, though.

I think it is very concise. What do you find vague about it?

Also I'm made to believe that the "Christian" God you refer to has wide appeal among the faithful. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool

No, you are right. The majority of persons never put much thought in what they believe in. Therefore their conceptions are mostly flawed and uninteresting.

But, considering we all have an interest in philosophy here, shouldn't we be truth-seeking rather than taking cheap shots at the ignorant?

Can you point me in the direction of a God definition that is better? — TheMadFool

The source of being. Simple, yet it conveys the fundamental questions, rather than pretending to know the answers.

The source of being.

For me, the omni- stuff is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser

Surely, if we ever come to the conclusion that there is a being or consciousness that created existence, the question whether it is truly omni-something is irrelevant.

The concept of God is the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of everything. — Bartricks

Nonsense.

If you are not necessarily referring to that kind of a being you should use a lower case g. — Bartricks

Nonsense.

All these things commonly attributed to God (or whatever name one would like to use), like omniscience, omnipotence, etc., belong to a conception of God that views God as a conscious being that is constantly pulling all the strings in the universe.

This concept then gets attacked by ridiculous arguments like:

But God is perfect and it would be an imperfection to have not existed for some time. So any god that comes into being won't qualify as God. — Bartricks

or

"If God is omnipotent, how come he cannot create an object he himself cannot move?"

or

"God created an imperfect mankind! Some God this must be!"

These sorts of arguments rub my feathers (the wrong way) for two reasons:

1. As though a being that is imperfect, yet has many (but not all) traits commonly attributed to it, is "not worthy" of being called God. The hubris in such a statement. Mind-blowing. If there existed such a being that has even ONE of the traits commonly attributed to this conception of God, that would quite literally change all we think we know about anything.

2. There are many conceptions of God other than the "all-controlling man in the sky". What people keep attacking is what I would call the "naive Christian" concept of God (though it is not exclusive to Christians). This concept differs greatly from other, dare I say less naive, concepts of God found among many of the world's philosophical, religious and spiritual traditions. Even many Christian theologians and philosophers shared concepts of God that had nothing to do with the man in the sky. Why? Because they went looking for the source material and came to the conclusion that what they were being taught in church had nothing to do with what all this thought was supposedly based on.

My point? Stop going for the low-hanging fruit of the naivety of the masses.

It seems like every time a concept of God is brought forth, it is immediately ridiculed by use of the stereotypical "man in the sky" trope. There are more than one conceptions of God.

What parts of Plato are you referring to?

Isn't the question of whether or not we should have a right or entitlement to reproduce answered by the question of whether or not all people should be having children? ...

If your view is wildly different then perhaps give us your thoughts on the matter first.