It seems to me that people do things that they otherwise would not do when they are placed in a position where in order to avoid doing the thing, often the following conditions hold:
- they would have to (a) proactively change the status quo, (b) explicitly point out that something is 'wrong' when others around them don't think it is, (c) risk a high liklihood socially sanctions by a third party for doing so, (d) tarnish your self-image with your past participation in an immoral enterprise.
- (e) there is a low likelihood of social sanctions for doing the thing.
- (f) the law appears to permit the action
- (g) there is an authority who absorbs the responsibility for deciding whether the action is permitted
One aspect of morality is "not doing things that other people frown upon", so in this sort of situation, either way, you would have to do something 'immoral' in order to avoid doing something 'immoral'. E.g. if you don't make waves, then you do something that you otherwise would not do, and if you do make waves, then (b) and (c) are both things that are frowned upon ((b) is seen as aggression, and (c) is frowned upon by definition). So the individual chooses the most neutral path, that is, the status quo.
Examples:
- Milgram experiment: in order to avoid shocking the people, the subject would have to refuse to (a) not push the button (be proactive), (b) explain to the experimenter that they refuse (aggressive challenge), (c) be socially sanctioned (the experimenter would pressure them to push the button; the experimenter may be construed as a third party because their goal is supposedly to increase knowledge, not to increase their wealth or status at the expense of the subjects being shocked), and (d) tarnish your self-image, because most likely before quitting you have already pushed the button once or twice after you felt bothered by it. (e) because people don't generally frown upon others for participating in psych experiments, and (f) because no one's ever heard of someone getting in trouble for participating in a psych experiment, and (g) because the experimenter has surely thought this out.
- working in an industry or on a project that you initially thought was good but that you later conclude is evil: in order to avoid working on this, one would have to (a) quit and find a new job, (b) explain to your colleagues why you are quitting, either lying about your motivations or being truthful but implying that they are bad if they do not quit too (which is aggression), (c) if you have a family to support, risk social sanctions from them and from your other family members about your irresponsible behavior of putting your own goals over their welfare, (d) tarnish your self-image, because most likely you have been having second-thoughts about your project for awhile before quitting. (e) because most of your friends and family support you, (f) because these businesses have been around for awhile and no one's shut them down, (g) because you have bosses who are wiser than you.
- nazis: having joined the army, in order to disobey an order, you'd have to (a) be proactive, (b) aggressively disagree, (c) be socially and legally punished for disobeying, (d) admit that your past assistance to the army may not have been for the best. (e) because most everyone in the country supports you, (f) because the government makes the law and the same government told you to do this, (g) because the government is supposed to decide what the law is and what you are supposed to do, not you.
People seem to think that the way to solve this sort of situation is to have society put stronger ethical demands on its members, e.g. to consider it more extremely shameful for people to do bad things, and to punish them more for it ("that was legal but immoral, i wouldn't have done that and you are scum for doing it").
However, this analysis calls that into question; according to this analysis, the problem here is that one's impulses to avoid social sanctions are being pitted against themselves, i.e. doing the thing might bring shame, but refusing to do it certainly will. This analysis suggests that a more individualistic attitude might do better ("i wouldn't have done that but i understood why you would have, since we each must follow our own conscience"), or perhaps even a more easygoing one ("you should've known better, but you were under a lot of pressure; i like to imagine that i wouldn't have done that but that's easy to say, if i were in your shoes who knows?"). However, there is probably still a place for an extreme social sanction/punishment response in some cases (e.g. the nazis).
![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
