I thought this was very interesting - you can't be a sweet cucumber in a vinegar barrel

[hunkermunker]

Just in general, really

NbN, Zimbardo is not arguing that people who have done wrong should be let off.

The questions are: why does evil exist? Where does it come from? Are only some people affected by it?
Or is it not the case that just about anyone will fall under its spell in certain conditions?
The latter assertion is very credible when you look at the history of mankind alone
but Zimbardo has gone one step further and conducted an experiment that really hammers it home.

The conclusion is NOT that we should let individuals off the hook and just blame the environment.
The culprits will still receive their punishment.

However, if we really want to tackle evil we need to eradicate toxic environments
not conduct witchhunts on individuals.

agree with the sentiment that we are all responsible.

Hard when governments make decisions

Think we have to be vocal and proactive though

this theory was popular just after the war, when people thought that if they eradicated slums, there would be no more crime. It's tempting to believe, but its been pretty much disproved since.

and if you accept this theory, it does let people off the hook, by saying the environment was to blame. Its like sending someone to prison, but telling them that it wasnt their fault really, because they grew up on a bad estate.

What did they replace the slums with?

That reminds me of another good example:
The successful zero tolerance policy in New York. Again, changing the environment was key.
Of course you still punish individuals. One does not exclude the other.

Locking people up is dealing with the symptoms.
Changing the environment is tackling the underlying causes.

That paper you allude to, the popular one specialising in witchhunts,
do we not detest it precisely because it peddles this myth that
all we have to do is 'lock them up and throw away the key' / 'send them back where they came from'
and Britain will be a lovely place (again)?
The bad apples myth in other words.

When I was at secondary school, we had six forms across the year.

Three of the classes were "naughty" - they were one half of the year and had assemblies, etc together.

The other three classes were "good" and also had assemblies together, etc.

The class I was in was "the best" - we won everything, all the sports days, all the class events, everything - we pulled together brilliantly and even the lads who might've been troublesome and the girls who were more fussed about their hair and not much else couldn't say no to the others who rallied them and involved them and just plain expected them to join in.

The teachers recognised this and when we got to the fourth year, they put the other two "good" classes with the worst of the bad ones and we were put with the other two more dubious classes.

Worked quite well too.

[sweet 'n' sour cucumber]

the slum removal was the theory that if everyone had a nice house, there wouldnt be any more crime, because crime breeds in nasty slums/bad barrels.
We could argue about this until the cows come home. I have a very individualistic, western attitude towards personal responsibility for right and wrong.

that paper thing
you blame any literate adult of reasonable IQ who does wrong for the wrong that they have done, and the fact that they are an immigrant/single mother/on benefits with 50 children does not excuse them doing wrong.

Of course, it's equally false to say that they did wrong because they are any of those things either. So no letting the witch-hunters off the hook either!