If a topic like this already exists then I apologize.


If you have the time and interest I really recommend that you watch the whole video. The experiment starts after about 10 minutes in.

It's shockingly amazing that so many test subjects were willing to go that far but my question is do you think you would go that far? Personally I don't think I would but on the other hand I already know the truth about it so of course it can be hard to judge.

Evil is not a easy word to define. It depends on many different things. In this case for example, I can understand people keep flipping the switches. Because you generally trust the "scientist" to know what he is doing.

Indeed. I can understand that they'd do it the first couple of times, I'd do it too, but when the learner begins groaning and screaming in pain you should be able to see that this is wrong. If not then, then when the learner is saying that he wants no part of this. Of course the scientist only confuses the teachers more by saying that it's all okay and what's weird is that "we" would just take his words as gold.

It is just a totally bad way to test "evil"(if that is even possible). There are to many factors to consider, also for example how a person works with authority. There are some people who'd rather always go the easy way, trust others more than themselves and obey authorities, but there are also people who trust their own decisions more and go against authorities if what they say does not go with what the person thinks is right.

I don't think that's quite so much about people being evil as it is about people being easily cowed by authority. About people wanting to give up responsibility for their actions to others.

That said, I would LOVE to have that brain scan test done. Might explains a few things.

I also want that brain test.
Shouldn't the brain test be mandatory anyway?

"Evil" seems like a bit of a stretch for this particular case. As everyone else has said, it's about following authority, which was the point of the original Milgram experiment.

And at one point he even says the shocks don't endanger the man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovq5-OUEggk#t=1828s
I can't stand the constant shocked (pun not intended) looks, every time someone flips the switch it's

Evil is if you were doing it for your own pleasure, this isn't an accurate evil test...

I don't know about that. I figure I could do some pretty "evil" things without deriving pleasure from them at all... assuming I judged it was necessary.

Evil can also be a variable dependent upon perspective, as well as a universal constant.

Yes, but doing it because it's necessary means it is no longer an evil action.

It is evil only if pleasure is derived from other's suffering.

That's your personal definition.

Another would be "deliberate wrongdoing with any goal in mind."

If I shoot you because I want your money so I can buy food, I'm not necessarily deriving pleasure from the act of shooting you, or of eating the food, but I'm still doing evil.

Or conversely, if I shoot you, despite you being unarmed, because you tried to steal my favorite toy, according to societal norms I am committing an evil act, even though I derive no pleasure from shooting you.

The ends don't justify the means, or so they tell me.

It's the fact that I value my stomach and my toys more than your life that makes me "evil." Not any pleasure or lack thereof involved.

Actually, I'd just give you a decent meal for free... I'm a far better cook than McD's, and far less expensive.

And for stealing, I would definitely consider being shot for it as a fitting punishment. (not digital stealing though)

A little hypocritical, is it not?

I always figured that BEING evil means you get enjoyment out of causing pain to others, and I'm not talking about kinky sado masochist BDSM whatever crap, because that's a mutual thing. I'm talking about killing, or stealing, or screwing over someone else because it gives you enjoyment. Now I don't think this counts for say, little kids doing pranks on their neighborhood or friends for the fun of it, as I think I can safely say most of us have some sadistic tendencies no matter how minor, but we wouldn't be 'evil' because there are limits. If a prank went horribly wrong and someone was seriously injured or even died, usually you'd feel really bad about it and ashamed you did it. Whereas an evil person would probably laugh his ass off.

Not in the slightest. Stealing a physical object removes it from the possession of the original owner, whereas digital stealing simply makes a copy without removing anything from the original owner's possession.

I know, but isn't that the definition of stealing? So something like digital stealing(in your sense) doesn't exist.

It removes from their possession the money they were entitled to collect for having created it in the first place. It's not exactly theft, but at it's root it is a fundamental denial of human rights - the right to collect wages for work done. Which is still considered a crime by most civilized societies.

I haven't watched this video, but I'm familiar with this experiment.



Well you can chalk me up as partially evil then; I'm pretty sure I'd zap the guys and laugh at hearing the yelps (at lower voltages anyway). However I'd stop right up to the point where the test subjects were saying to stop the shocks or else where I thought the voltage was too dangerous to their health. I really can't see any authority figure making me go farther than that though, short of putting a gun to my head.

EDIT:

I watched some snippets of the video, I think my evil cutoff point is around 120 volts.

Thanks to the fact that my old man was a Psych teacher, I've known about the Milgram Experiment for years. I'd skew the test results, though I suppose in the interest of science I'd have to tell them that.

I zap people on a case-by-case basis.

Besides, it's not the voltage, it's the amps.

Amps are fun!