shadowplay Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 This is tangentially related to my thread about respect. The other day I was reading about how historically people who do evil things (such as slave owners and Nazi officers) are often "nice" people in their personal lives. Why do you think that is? How can somebody be "nice" in general, but do such morally abhorrent things? I believe there's a type of nice person who is such a pacifist that they are capable of doing horrible things. They enjoy being liked and avoid conflict; they don't want to rock the boat. So if they live in a culture where slavery is acceptable and encouraged, they won't take a stand. They may even accept an active role in the system. It's just a job to them. In a way, people like this are the most dangerous because they sit back and do nothing while a few sadists at the top run the show. They also make the system of which they are a part seem more acceptable to others, because if this nice guy is involved how bad could it really be? I don't believe people like this are evil, though they are capable of doing evil things. Rather they go through extreme mental gymnastics to ward off cognitive dissonance. It's amazing what people are capable of rationalizing. Sometimes I wonder which people I know would do evil things if they lived in a society where it was acceptable. Thoughts? (Btw, I recommend "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning for people who are interested in this topic)
Taramere Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 The other day I was reading about how historically people who do evil things (such as slave owners and Nazi officers) are often "nice" people in their personal lives. Why do you think that is? How can somebody be "nice" in general, but do such morally abhorrent things? I agree that niceness is often more about conflict avoidance. People don't want to rock the boat, but that's often because they're afraid of worsening matters. To give an example - this thread: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t173478/ I was tempted to contribute my views, then I realised that my way of dealing with a situation like that probably isn't going to be regarded as a realistic option by most people. Particularly in the US where there's less statutory protection for people who decide to stand up for themselves in the workplace. I've done it a couple of times. Once very successfully, another time with consequences that tore my life apart for a while. It's a difficult call to make - knowing when to fight for a principle. Hats off to anyone who gets it right every time, because I know I don't. So although I found the "just keep your head down and get on with your work" or "play nice...rise above it" advice frustrating, maybe encouraging that kind of conflict avoidance is the only realistic advice to give most people in a tricky, potentially explosive situation. I'll add your book to my wishlist, btw.
Meaplus3 Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 ]I agree that niceness is often more about conflict avoidance. People don't want to rock the boat' date=' but that's often because they're afraid of worsening matters.[/b'] I don't believe that is necessarily true Tara. I consider myself to be a very nice person.. and it has nothing to do with conflict avoidance. In general I'm very laid back and little things just don't bother me like they might others. I know lot's of people with the same sort of mindset. Shadow, Over all as to why nice people do bad thing's?? I think we as humans are all capable of bad every now and then.. But as long as a person 9 times out of ten is nice and displays a general sign of living by decent morals and values then that person IMO is a good person. I think I made sense here. Mea:)
mental_traveller Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Niceness is about pleasing others and fitting in. So if a system is evil, "nice" people will often just follow it - either out of a desire to please, or deference to authority, or just a sheeplike need to fit in. Google "Milgram experiment" for some insights (if you haven't read about it before). To "rock the boat" often requires someone to be contrary, stubborn, independent, and not give a damn what others think. In other words, to be a bit of an *******, or at least not a team player. Also, in many evil systems and societies, non-conformity is not only unpopular, but you may be threatened with ostracism, prison, torture or even death. The average nice person is clearly going to cave in under those circumstances. Basically, niceness is just a superficial trait with nothing to do with morality.
Author shadowplay Posted December 23, 2008 Author Posted December 23, 2008 I agree that niceness is often more about conflict avoidance. People don't want to rock the boat, but that's often because they're afraid of worsening matters. To give an example - this thread: http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t173478/ I was tempted to contribute my views, then I realised that my way of dealing with a situation like that probably isn't going to be regarded as a realistic option by most people. Particularly in the US where there's less statutory protection for people who decide to stand up for themselves in the workplace. I've done it a couple of times. Once very successfully, another time with consequences that tore my life apart for a while. It's a difficult call to make - knowing when to fight for a principle. Hats off to anyone who gets it right every time, because I know I don't. So although I found the "just keep your head down and get on with your work" or "play nice...rise above it" advice frustrating, maybe encouraging that kind of conflict avoidance is the only realistic advice to give most people in a tricky, potentially explosive situation. I'll add your book to my wishlist, btw. I was hoping you'd chime in. Conflict avoidance is an OK strategy at times, but what about extreme situations where a real injustice is occurring? I don't know the answer. I can't say for sure if I lived in Nazi Germany whether I'd take a stand and risk my life. I'd hope I would, but who knows. Who can honestly say they have that kind of moral fiber?
carhill Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 The other day I was reading about how historically people who do evil things (such as slave owners and Nazi officers) are often "nice" people in their personal lives. Why do you think that is? How can somebody be "nice" in general, but do such morally abhorrent things? Compartementalized sociopathy.
Taramere Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I was hoping you'd chime in. Conflict avoidance is an OK strategy at times, but what about extreme situations where a real injustice is occurring? I don't know the answer. I can't say for sure if I lived in Nazi Germany whether I'd take a stand and risk my life. I'd hope I would, but who knows. Who can honestly say they have that kind of moral fiber? Only the people who've done it, I guess. I think for a lot of people, it was a case of covertly helping people to escape from the nazis. Many good people in that situation just had to get devious in order to save their own lives and other people's. There was no feasible option. Take Mea saying "I don't avoid conflict. I'm just a laid back person." In a situation like that, I'm sure she would probably stop being laid back. But it would no doubt be a case of "how can I go about helping people without putting myself in the position of facing a certain death?" A person who stood up while it was happening to say "this is wrong. What have we become?" and faced fatal consequences for doing so might be celebrated years after the event for the bravery. At the time it happened, though, it would probably be a brave but completely futile gesture. Oppressors would just use the martyr's actions against the cause that martyr is fighting for. "See what happens if you take a stance against us?" A moral stance can look good, and if it's really well presented it can influence people into thinking your way....but ultimately people will favour whichever persuasively presented argument best fits their needs and keeps them safe in the middle of a crisis. Principles being a luxury people can indulge in once the danger is past. Tactics have a sleazier aura about them than principles have....but I think tactics are often more effective when it comes to winning justice.
Green Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 I think its all semantics to think about niceness vs. goodness. People do things and history and perspective can change the way people think of you. A person can be a child molester but still be the scientist who cures a certain kind of cancer that kills many kids a year. A person can be your lover and the light of your life only to purposefully hurt you in a way that never leaves you the same.
Trialbyfire Posted December 23, 2008 Posted December 23, 2008 Overall, pick your battles. Some are a complete waste of time and emotion, while others are worth taking a stance. I think you're confusing niceness with the stereotypical doormat.
IrishCarBomb Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 People comply with authority or what they think their duty/role is in a situation. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/milgram_obedience_experiment.html
You'reasian Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 This is tangentially related to my thread about respect. The other day I was reading about how historically people who do evil things (such as slave owners and Nazi officers) are often "nice" people in their personal lives. Why do you think that is? How can somebody be "nice" in general, but do such morally abhorrent things? I don't believe people like this are evil, though they are capable of doing evil things. Rather they go through extreme mental gymnastics to ward off cognitive dissonance. It's amazing what people are capable of rationalizing. I think I know where you are going. Men whom serve in combat roles for the armed services are professionally trained killers. Yet, some of them may have excellent character. There's no fancy mental gymnastics: they train day in, day out in their job, they respect their country, their fellow citizens but they have become acclimated to what they need to do. The frame of reference that people use to judge is wrong. Perception is not always reality. The silent, cool, calm, relaxed guy is not the loser nerd; the rowdy, life of the party, animal is not dumb.
Ariadne Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 people who do evil things (such as slave owners and Nazi officers) are often "nice" people in their personal lives. Why do you think that is? How can somebody be "nice" in general, but do such morally abhorrent things? Because most people don´t think they are doing anything wrong, and believe themselves to be nice people. Say, when Americans slaughter millions of turkeys for Thanksgiving, they believe they are being nice by giving thanks and having a nice dinner.
Ross PK Posted December 25, 2008 Posted December 25, 2008 Sometimes I wonder which people I know would do evil things if they lived in a society where it was acceptable. Thoughts? It's certainly a disturbing thought. My feelings on niceness or evilness, don't have anything to do with what the majority thinks. For example I don't think animals should be classed as lower than us, and therefore to do what we want with no matter how they feel.
Ariadne Posted December 26, 2008 Posted December 26, 2008 Btw, With the exception of the ones that do it for sexual pleasure. Like in the case of serial killers (sexuality manifested in that way), or child molestors. These people know that what they are doing is really bad, but the sexual urge is stronger and the bad thing is the kick.
Yamaha Posted December 26, 2008 Posted December 26, 2008 A person can appear to be nice but goodness comes form the heart.
axisdenied Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 Shadow -- Great thread. I think that people who end up in a position that requires them to do horrible things without protest or desertion at a later time haven't yet thought themselves to the center of their own ethical code. While their actions are still very much their own fault, they haven't come to a place where they completely "own" their effect on the outside world. I think militaries prefer younger soldiers because they lack the extended history with creative dilemmas that lead those of us further into our adulthoods to reasonable conclusions on our own morality, not just because they are more able bodied. I've found that it's pretty easy to become strict with oneself in their own ethical code if they've unwittingly done something horrible and are forced to reflect on it later. If you're looking for people with staunch, unwavering ethics/morality, give up on looking around in church. Try your local penetentiary. Personality traits outside of the atrocity notwithstanding, it comes down to how you view yourself with respect to your position and whatever machine grants it to you. Some just aren't self-aware enough to force themselves to take the responsibility.
Trialbyfire Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist."
JohnnyBlaze Posted December 29, 2008 Posted December 29, 2008 I guess it all depends on what you consider good and evil. Do you consider owning a pet dog or cat as morally abhorrent? Probably not; most people nowadays don't. Back in the days of slaves, people were raised with the beliefs that slaves were property - they were on the same level as your dog and cat. So as long as they weren't treating their slaves too badly, they had no reason to find anything morally wrong with it. Same goes for the Germans in the period between the end of WW1 and WW2. From our perspective, they were monsters who sought to wipe out the Jews. But you have to look at their situation. They had been beaten down after WW1 to the point that their money was a joke even in comparison to the Russian ruble. Once Hitler came along, the Germans heard nothing but sanctioned reports about how the Jews were responsible for their current situation. "Aryans suffer while Jews prosper" was the message, over and over again. As far as the Germans knew, all that they were doing was protecting their own people by eliminating their enemies. Of course, some knew the reality, but many didn't; it was hidden from public view. Really, it isn't much different than the current climate in the United States. Many people have become fearful of Muslims simply because they hear about things like "the War on Terror" and how much of a threat al-Qaeda and Iraq are to them. The same thing happened between the 40's and the 80's with the USSR. Just look at how much we don't know about Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay. And we have more access to outside information than the Germans of the 30's & 40's ever did. If we're in the dark in this day and age, it's difficult to reasonably think they could do any better. So although we may see Germany's actions as reprehensible, given the current situation here, I don't believe we're in any position to pass judgement on them. People draw their conclusions based on the evidence provided. When they are only being allowed to see one side of the evidence, it's hard to draw any other conclusions. Let the flaming commence...
Recommended Posts