Where is the line between good and evil?

Where is the line between good and evil? Are some people on the side of good and others on the side of evil? Can this border be crossed and if so, under what conditions?

The well-known psychologist Filip Zimbardo dealt with these questions, so he decided to get answers to them with an experiment. It is often thought that the line between good and evil is very clear and unchanging, and that some people are on the side of good, while others are on the side of evil. Throughout history, many events have been witnessed in which people were willing to do evil and injustice to each other.

A large number of people believe that in such situations it is simply about people who are evil, ie that it is about personality traits or character. Other factors that can result in such behavior and make the average individual, who otherwise adheres to social and moral values, evil are often not taken into account. Philip Jimbardo decided to conduct an experiment to prove that the line between good and evil is actually very thin and that the situation can lead “good” people to cross that line.

In August 1971, Zimbardo conducted an experiment, better known as "The Standford Prison Experiment", which is considered one of the most famous and notorious experiments, and the knowledge he gained shocked both experts and the public.

The participants were 24-year-old students, in good physical and mental health, emotionally stable, above-average intelligence and without a history of previous abuse of psychoactive substances and participation in criminal activities. They applied through a newspaper ad asking for volunteers to participate in a psychological study of the effects of prison life. They earned $ 15 a day by participating. The young men were randomly divided into two groups - prisoners and guards.

The purpose of the experiment was to check whether there would be a change in the behavior of the participants with regard to the assigned roles and in which direction those changes would go. To make the experiment as credible as possible, Zimbardo simulated a real prison environment in the basement of the Stanford Department of Psychology. Participants - prisoners were even arrested by the police in their homes on charges of armed robbery and burglary. After their rights were read, they were searched and handcuffed, they were taken by police car to the station where the standard identification of the suspects was performed.

Upon arrival in the prison environment, they were introduced to the warden, searched in detail, their clothes were confiscated and they were dusted with powder against yours. Then they were given uniforms (dresses without underwear with an identification number on them), hats and chains with a padlock that they wore around their right ankle. This was intended to provoke a feeling of humiliation, demasculinization, oppression and deindividualization, ie a functional simulation of prison conditions.

Participants - guards did not undergo any training, but had complete freedom to do whatever they deem necessary (physical violence was prohibited) in order to maintain order in the prison. They all wore green-brown uniforms, batons, whistles and sunglasses (for the purpose of maintaining anonymity). At first, neither the prisoners nor the guards were immersed in the roles. The prisoners did not take their duties seriously, and the guards did not know how to impose themselves as an authority. The first day passed without incident, but the next morning the prisoners organized a riot. After that, the guards became more violent and inhumane. At the beginning, they punished inappropriate behavior with push-ups, but after the rebellion, they put a few in solitary confinement, took away their clothes and beds.

The cruelty of the guards was even so great that they controlled the prisoners' urination and forced them to do it in buckets in their cells. Also, they caused conflicts and mistrust among the prisoners by putting only a few in the cell with privileges. After a few days, three types of guards could be distinguished: strict but honest guards, guards who never punished, and hostile guards, prone to violence and humiliation.

The prisoners dealt with the situation in various ways. Several prisoners left the experiment due to emotional breakdown, some rebelled and fought against the guards, and some were good prisoners and thus sought to be at the mercy of the guards. By the end of the experiment, there was no more unity, just a bunch of isolated individuals, such as prisoners of war or the mentally ill. The guards took complete control of the prison, and demanded blind obedience from the prisoners. Visits for parents and friends were also organized during the experiment. Also, a visit was organized by a Catholic priest who talked to all the prisoners and advised them to seek legal help because that is the only way to get out of prison. This further blurred the participants' image of whether this was an experiment or a real situation and where the role ends and their personal identity begins.

A Parole Board was even organized, before which several prisoners were brought. It is interesting that the prisoners were ready to give up the money they had earned so far in order to be pardoned, and that no prisoner then asked to leave the experiment. It is obvious that their sense of reality was blurred and that they no longer perceived this situation as an experiment. The first participant left the experiment after less than 36 hours because he began to show signs of acute stress. Due to poor health and mental condition, another participant left the experiment and his condition was so bad that it took Zimbard some time to convince him that he was not in the right prison and that he was only participating in the research. More and more of them began to show signs of psychological stress, and an additional five prisoners were released earlier. Zimbardo stopped the experiment on August 20, 1971.

The planned two-week experiment ended earlier due to the impaired mental health of a group of prisoners and the extremely violent and sadistic behavior of a group of guards during the night, when they thought no one could see them. On the last day, a series of meetings were held, with each group (prisoners, guards, staff) separately and eventually together. During that meeting, everyone was able to express their feelings and experiences and possible alternatives for certain behaviors that emerged were discussed.

With the mentioned experiment, Zimbardo came to several important conclusions. He pointed out the great influence of the situation on the behavior of an individual. Despite the common belief that "evil" people are simply like that because of their personality traits or character, with this experiment he showed that there are certain conditions that can cause the worst in people. What actually happened during that experiment that certain participants, otherwise averse to violence, became violent and inhumane?

First, there has been a deindividuation of certain individuals. Deindividuation refers to changed behavior and experience of oneself as an individual in a group situation. A person behaves in a way that is not typical for him (does not behave in accordance with previously adopted social and moral values) under the influence of the social situation. The consequence of deindividuation is the manifestation of behaviors that are inappropriate or unacceptable, such as violence. When deindividuation occurs, behavior is usually not determined by one's own choice, but by the situation and the demands it places on the individual. In this experiment, deindividuation was contributed by a sense of anonymity (prisoners wore dresses and hats, guards uniforms and goggles), diffusion of responsibility (guards knew there were experimenters who only supervised enforcement and expected them to intervene if they reacted inappropriately), and presence itself. other participants.

Another important factor was the influence of the roles (prisoner-guard) assigned to the participants. Namely, the role determines the experience and behavior that is expected of an individual. Thus, the participants in the experiment behaved in the way they considered acceptable and expected, given their role, and even in ways that were not peculiar to them, given their personality traits and character.

This research is a clear indication of how the role can take over a person and push personal and ethical norms elsewhere. In psychology, this phenomenon is called the Lucifer effect and refers to a drastic change in human character, when good people, under the influence of a certain situation, behave violently, deviantly or destructively. Exposure to a certain social situation suppresses previously adopted social and moral values, which affects the manifestation of inappropriate forms of behavior.