Humans are basically ... What?
by Dr Michael Cole


When looking for solutions to injustice one has to start somewhere with a number of premises or starting points. Those premises are taken for granted. But they play a large role in determining the proposed solution. And they may be wrong.

For example in discussing the possible solutions to injustice it is tempting to start with the premise that humans are basically good. If one accepts this premise then a number of potential solutions to injustice may be found. But if the premise is not correct, if humans are not basically good, then the potential solutions will probably be incorrect too.

So are humans basically good? And if not then what are they?

I suggest the short answer is that humans are not basically good.

The longer answer is that humans are neither basically good nor basically bad. Most humans, even you or I, can be either depending on circumstances. Humans are influenced by those around them especially those in leadership roles. Otherwise they are usually inactive bystanders.

The upshot is that humans usually muddle along doing what their neighbours do. But when influenced by an immoral leader most can be easily led into immoral and repugnant behaviour. 

Atrocities are committed by ordinary people like you and me who are under the influence of circumstances or leadership that requires us to behave badly. The other humans around us will usually be inactive bystanders who do not intervene.

Most of us cannot believe that we are as I have described. We think we are basically good and cannot imagine that in certain circumstances we could easily become people like the concentration guards who worked underfed humans to death or threw them still alive into ovens.

So where is the evidence for this unpalatable view?

The evidence comes from the Milgram experiments. 65% of ordinary people will give a potentially lethal electric shock to someone else if directed to do so by an authority figure. They do it even if the other person has presumably already died or been knocked unconscious by the previous electric shocks they have been given.

There is some good news, however, from Milgram’s experiments. 

Firstly there are a minority of humans who refuse to be immoral. They just say ‘No’. 

And secondly a bystander who speaks out has a great deal of influence in stopping immoral behaviour.

In Milgram’s experiments people usually refused to give potentially lethal shocks if a bystander spoke out against it.

Links to Milgram’s experiments are given below.

So what do we do about injustice? 

I suggest we start with new premises. 

The first premise is that most people follow authority or leadership and can be led to do anything including atrocities. Otherwise they will be inactive bystanders.  


The second premise is that a few humans will resist. 


The third premise is that a bystander that speaks out will have a large influence in preventing immoral behaviour.

From these three premises the following potential solutions may appear:

1.      There needs to be strong checks and balances on any authority or leadership.

2.      It follows that the population must be, and must remain, informed.

3.      Everyone must be vigilant to maintain the ‘separation of the powers’ and to maintain the right to ‘freedom of expression’. 

4.      Secrecy in leadership should be avoided.

5.      Speaking out should be encouraged. It is the few who refuse to be immoral and who speak out that keep the other humans ‘good’. A bystander speaking out is the most powerful force in stopping immoral behaviour.

6.      A bystander who says nothing does nothing useful.

Unfortunately speaking out is dangerous to your health, wealth and life. Those behaving immorally will have no problem using immoral means to silence someone who speaks out. Finding safe ways to speak out are discussed on later pages.

So where is the evidence for the three premises outlined above?

The evidence is in the experiments of a psychologist, Stanley Milgram. He showed that ordinary people will commit atrocious acts if encouraged to do so by someone they consider to be in authority. There are a number of sites about Milgram’s experiments. Just Google ‘Milgram’, ‘Milgram obedience’ or ‘Milgram experiment’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Milgram’s Experiments are explained well on these three short videos on YouTube:

Part 1  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcvSNg0HZwk

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzTuz0mNlwU

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmFCoo-cU3Y

One of several factors that reduce obedience to immorality is a bystander who rebels against the immoral authority. If someone speaks out the compliance rate falls from 65% to 10%.

Unfortunately this fact is not covered in the above sites, but is covered here:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html

and in the 4th paragraph here:

http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/ptn/2012/11/heroic-imagination.aspx     


‘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.’

--    Milgram, Stanley (1974). "The Perils of Obedience".Harper's Magazine. Archived from the original on 2011-05-14. Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority.
For a preview of topics still to be covered this is a lecture given by Dr Philip Zambardo. It covers a lot of ground. It is a long video. Dr Zambardo starts the lecture at 4:30 (4 minutes and thirty seconds from the start of the video) and ends at 1 hour and 31 minutes. Click:

The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How  Good People Turn Evil

Again, in summary,


1.      Each politician or position should be given only limited power or authority. There should always be some other power or authority who can overrule a politician or person in a position. Making sure there is a way to get a review by a Court is a good way to do this.

2.      It follows that people must ensure they are informed. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is very important.

3.      Everyone must work to keep separate the politicians, the government departments and the judges and courts‘ and fight for the right to ‘freedom of expression’. 

4.      Leaders should not be allowed to keep secrets from citizens.

5.      Speaking out should be encouraged. It is not dobbing. It is preventing harm and damage. It is only the few people who refuse to be immoral and who speak out that keep the other humans ‘good’. A bystander speaking out is the most powerful force in stopping immoral behaviour.

6.      A person who sees harm or damage or evil and says nothing does nothing useful.
Follow Dr Michael Cole on Twitter:
Given the above, thes are interesting articles: 

Is-america-a-free-country

America No Longer Has a Functioning Judicial System

Next page: What the Stanford Prison Experiments tell us about Workplace Bullying (Mobbing)