http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsFEV35tWsg

A very interesting speech on the societal influences of decision making as it relates to good and evil.

Quite interesting! It is interesting how this sort of springboards off the "mind control" topic, giving some insight into how (though not necessarily why) people become entrapped by Cults. Following Dr. Z's "slippery slope of evil" gives a good example of how one falls into the trap of "group think" - step by step allowing themselves to be trapped by the evil that remains vertually inperceptable.

I was fascinated by how anonymity effected the expression of evil behaviors. Its a simple distinction with complex ramifications.

"To be a hero you have to learn be a deviant, you should always be going against the conformity of the group."

To do that you must be a skeptic and free thinker. To be a skeptic you must question everything, ask for data, come to your own conclusions, if it matches up with the group well good, if not then I guess its time to take action.

I think much of it is also circumstances and being hardened to what is right and wrong. With the soldiers as well as police officers and medical people...They have to form a thick skin...and if that crosses the line evil is what follows.

I think the key factor is responsibility. There seems to be an inverse relationship between responsibility and evil. So much so that one could almost define evil as lack of responsibility.

when you cross the line love responsibility is the last thing on their minds...wouldn't you say.

I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

I take out the word "love" and it makes sense, I move the word "love" behind "line" and it makes sense. Otherwise this sentence does not make sense. Mistype?

Yeah, I assumed that it was a typo. But I saw about four ways of going with it and didn't want to try and answer a question that wasn't being asked.

Great link--thanks to the OP for posting this. Ironically, I had been doing some research on Dr. Stanley Milgram (who is mentioned in the clip linked in the original post.)

Milgram was a social scientist who performed some very interesting (and disturbing) tests at Yale between 1961-1962. The premise was simple--as you saw in the video above. In the event that you did not watch the entire video, Milgram was able to show that regular people were willing to administer lethal shocks of electricity to people all in the name of "education" and consequence based learning. Actors (no one was really shocked) were put in place and "teachers" were told that for every wrong answer the actor "learner" gave, a shock would have to be given. The voltage started very low but eventually it got to insanely high doses. The actor "learners" would scream in protest--beg the "teacher" to stop--express clear discomfort.

The results--65% of people were willing to take the experiment all the way (to 450 volts) simply because a guy in a white lab coat (the observer of the experiment) told them to keep going.

Before the experiments, psychologists were asked how many people they felt would actually "go all the way" and scientists thought the number would be incredibly low. They were wrong.

So, one guy in a lab coat telling another guy to keep shocking the "learner" DESPITE the fact that the learner was in obvious pain! Why?

This fascinates me a great deal, especially as it relates to religious fanaticism. If one guy in a white coat who has NO ability to make/force a person to administer electrical currents sufficient to cause a great deal of harm can convince over 50% of sane/rational people to harm another all in the name of education, should we be shocked that authority figures who employ the name of God are able to do much more of the same, with far more terrifying results?

For how many centuries and using how many reasons, has God been put front and center as it relates to "In the name of God we..." only to have the action equal some form of horror? True, many have committed horrible acts in the name of no God at all and those situations are no less tragic. But they are less confusing, in many ways. To justify hate in the name of love is beyond scary. To convince people that the hurt they are causing, whether that be some form of bigotry or something far more sinister) is "OK" because the ends justify the means--well, that is nothing new to this world or to humans.

We should pay attention to Stanley Milgram.

-Drew