What are you willing to risk for your moral convictions?

What a hard thing to consider! I'd like to think that my ethics are more solid than the shifts of the historical eras that I live through. And there are some things which I disagree with the majority of my society on (like whether eating meat is ok).

But there are some scary studies out there, like that of Milgram, in which he got 2/3 of his study subjects to act in a way that they believed would cause excruciating pain to another person. 2/3 is a big number - big enough to tell me that I can't say with utter certainty what I'd done if I'd been living in such a society. I like to think I know what I'd have done. But I bet that way more than 1/3 of us believe that we'd have been in that 1/3 of Milgram's subjects which did not act with potential cruelty.

I'm pretty sure that I'd be a happy Nazi, though a few months ago I didn't think so, and I may not think so next week.
I think there are tons of little injustices that I ignore in my day-to-day life. I'm not nice to everyone I meet, I don't always drive with courtesy to others, I often catch myself falling into thoughts of dislike for others or groups of others. All of these things lead me to believe that I have the potential for greater hate/evil.
I think it's easy to watch a documentary of the Holocaust and see the Nazis as pure evil and feel morally distinct from them. (I think I over-use Nazis as an example, but they are such a perfect example.) But, living in that time and place, it's hard to say what things would be like. I could imagine being convinced that Jews were evil and that they had to be destroyed or controlled. Even today, though I have many close Jewish friends, I can't say that my mind is clean of stereotypes associated with Jews as a group (though, I can say that on an intellectual level I know these thoughts to be silly).
The only counter argument I have is that I believe that if I witnessed or committed an act of brutality against another person, I think I'd feel sick and the experience would haunt me forever. It's wholly possible that this would break whatever hate was built up inside me. ...and I don't know what would happen at that point. I'd either shutdown and become a mindless Nazi killing zombie, or I'd risk everything to fight the evil.

**bill: An interesting number that I have heard (and I will try to dig up the source) is that towards the end of WWII, 13% of Americans polled were in favor of simply killing all the Japanese currently in concentration camps. The Allies was clearly going to win (eventually) at that point. Imagine if it were the Allies that were facing imminent defeat. I can easily see a larger portion (possibly even a majority) of the populace in favor of wreaking vengeance on a captive group identified as the enemy.

I would like to think that I would have taken a stand, but I am very much a willow person.

Ah, apathy.

I would have seen it as wrong, I don't know what I would have done about it.

daver - wow, ouch.

Avocado: there was no 1/3 which "didn't act with potential cruelty" - the 2/3 figure (it's actually 68%) is for those who went to the easily potentially lethal range - 100% "acted with potential cruelty" (i.e. administered electric shocks up to and including 300v - the drop-off only started after the victim first screamed, at this point a mere 12.5% stopped - i.e. 87.5% of people administered another shock despite the fact that the person screamed). I can't remember when the victim started pleading to be let out, but I believe it was before he first screamed (could well be wrong on that, may be after he kicks the wall? can't remember).

I don't think that a person actually knows what they would do unless they were in that situaion. But I would hope I could see the injustice around me.

Supplicant - Wow :(

I had to go back an research the Milgram experiment, mostly in search of the age range of the subjects, which unfortunately I found no reference to. Does anyone know? Another thing I found interesting was the Obedience Theory and a reference to the biblical story of Abraham. God says take your son and sacrifice him....good boy. What sort of message is that sending from the ultimate authority figure? And when I consider it, in a number of cases the bible (the ultimate moral authority in some cultures) has been used to commit atrocities. Slavery was justified with biblical quotes...as well as antisemitism. The good book seems to be a most powerful weapon when it's almost omnipotent authority is misused.
I think I just went off on a tangent, but some of the ideas are ok so I'm leaving it anyway.

The Milgram experiment was done on a college campus. I'm not sure if any adult students were included or not. But I hope I helped you narrow it down.

I'm not familiar with the Milgram experiment. Can anyone tell me HOW he got people to inflict pain on others? I'm sure I would have been in the group that wouldn't do it. The thought sickens me.

SueBee:There wasn't a group that didn't do it. Supplicant was right it was 100% up until a certain point. I think he was able to do this by allowing people to shift moral responsibility to another person(the person in charge of the experiment). They were just following orders...or at least that's my take on it. Another thing I've learned while researching this is that I've been spelling expirement wrong all these years.

If I had been born into some of those conditions, the experiences which have led me to my strong anarchist stance probably would not have arisen.
If I were to wake up tomorrow in one of these times/conditions, I sure as hell couldn't take it lying down.

This is a question impossible to answer. Looking back probably everyone will say 'yes, I would have done something', but when the crap really hits the fan, most people will keep quiet.

vos- I think you are right. I'd like to think I would have fought for the cause, but I imagine I would have kept quiet unless it came to defending a good friend. I think I would have tried to secretly help people if I had the chance, but why speak out and effectively commit suicide for nothing?

**yorricks: Were Milgram's subjects not led to believe that the shockee was a volunteer?

Yes daver. I did skip that part didn't I?

daver - Milgram's subjects indeed thought that the shockee was a volunteer, like themselves. In fact, the shockee was a confederate of the experimenter, and was simply acting out the part of being in pain.

The experiment led the subjects to believe that they were being paired with another subject and that the roles were randomly chosen as to who would be the 'teacher' and who would be the 'learner.' Of course, all the true subjects were put in the 'teacher' role; they were supposed to shock the 'learner' whenever the 'learner' got the item wrong. The shocks, to their knowledge, got progressively worse, and the 'learner' confederate acted out increasingly high levels of pain. If the subject paused in response to the 'learner' confederate's acting out of pain, then Milgram - the authority researcher figure - would tell them to continue with the teaching / shocking task. On the whole, subjects did.

I believe that this took place in New Haven, Ct - I'm guessing the Yale campus, then. Don't know if subjects were mostly students or not.

yorricks, Mariah: The one bit of video footage I have seen was of a white adult male (not a 20-something student, probably mid 30's?). Just checked - the subjects were forty males aged 20-50, the experiment was held at Yale University.

The authority figure stated "The experiment requires that you must continue" on the first reluctance, if you are still reluctant you are told "It is absolutely essential that you continue" and finally "You have no other choice, you must go on". The subject did believe the learner was a volunteer, however at the 8th error (120v) the learner cries out, at 150v they demand to be let out ("You have no right to keep me here!" is the wording from memory), at 180v they cry out that they can't stand the pain any longer - yet none stopped before it reached 300v. Before the experiment psychologists were asked to predict the results - they predicted only a tiny amount of people (1 or 2% I think, I can't remember) would carry it all the way through.

SueBee: the subject met the learner and went into the room with them where they were strapped in to a chair, then they went into another room and sat at a machine. To administer the shocks they flicked a switch on this machine. I have heard about what were presumably follow up experiments (I know very little about these) where the subject had to place the learners hand on a pad to administer the shock. When they did this they found many less people were willing to go through with it. They also found that the more the observer/experimenter acted like an authority figure the more the subject followed through.

I'll be the first to admit I'm a total coward.

I think that initially I would have been to scared to do anything. If I was faced with enough instances of the horror around me, I probably would have reached a breaking point and begun to rebel.