Underseer
Contributor
Bingo!
- - - Updated - - -
If everyone is doing it, then the group influences our brains far more than we think:
However, while their Hollywood peers may have been doing the same thing, the fact that they worked to keep these things hidden means that they knew damn well that what they were doing was wrong. So they were aware that the larger group (society as a whole) was against what the smaller peer group was doing, and thus they had every reason to understand that what they were doing was wrong.
We can unthinkingly let the group think for us (that's more or less what happened in the Stanford prison experiment), but that still doesn't absolve you of responsibility for participating in an immoral or illegal act. It's really important to be aware of when the group is influencing your judgment, because if something like fascism sweeps through society again, you're going to regret not being this guy:
I think the Stanford prison experiment is really relevant to this discussion. If you get caught up in group dynamics like that, not only can you convince yourself that what the group is doing is acceptable, but you might actually do the bad things yourself either to convince yourself that the group is not bad or to convince the group to accept you. When the group goes bad, our social instincts work against us. Otherwise good people can do monstrous things.
And I think that's why it's extra important to not accept the "everyone was doing it" defense (which is not all that different from "I was just following orders"), and further to have public discussions about how unacceptable it is, because maybe the next time someone is part of a group that is going bad, they might be more aware of how the group is influencing them and do something about it. It's important to have this discussion and tell people that "but everyone is doing it" is not an acceptable defense, nor does it diminish moral culpability. The whole point to morals is to influence the behavior of members of the group, and we can't afford to tolerate this.
I guess it depends how pragmatic we want to be. Either we create laws around humans based on human psychology. Or we make laws around a morally perfect fantasy human.
People in showbiz were back then, and still are, outsiders. These aren't the coolest or most popular people. These are people, for whatever reason, don't fit into normal life. People in showbiz are way over-represented in all manner of mental problems. Which is ironic, because it's an industry, all about keeping up appearances. Those in showbiz are aware of this and help each other out to keep up appearances. They protect each other and are very loyal. Also... there's so many in the industry who want fame and will never get it. That it makes loyalty even more important. Because it can be a ticket into the industry, and the only way to stay hot.
Your critique is basically a version of Sartre's authentic human argument. It's total bullshit. Because it assumes that anybody following their own heart will do better than those joining in. Well... I recommend you see the film Chickenhawk. It's a documentary of NAMBLA. A bunch of pedophiles who all see themselves just like that guy in the Nazi pic who refuses to salute. In their minds they're the victims of persecution and the good guys. People refusing to join in is no guarantee of more moral behaviour. Rather the opposite. Group think and group social pressure, I'm pretty sure, keeps us being better people than we otherwise would be.
There's nothing wrong about joining in and doing what the others are doing. We're a social species. It's what we do. The whole idea that if you're not a one in a million hero, prepared to sacrifice everything and everyone for what is good, you're evil or morally corrupt... it's such fucking bullshit. How the hell did you get so arrogant that you think that you're the best moral judge out there. It's easy being brave if you have nothing to lose and nothing is at stake. How does it feel up their on your high horse? All snug and comfy?
What we should stop doing is adoring actors for skillfully reading lines they didn't write. How about not seeing these people as the pinnacle of human ability, and just seeing them for what they are, a dysfunctional bunch of people? I think it was Peggy Ashcroft who said in an interview with a fawning journalist that "I'm not really the queen. It's just pretend". Giving insecure people the keys to the kingdom and endless respect... is perhaps the problem?
edit: The Stanford prison experiment had methodological problems. It wasn't a free experiment. The guards were encouraged to mistreat the prisoners. And they knew that the prisoners were there willingly and could leave at any time. The experiment is interesting for a number of reasons. But I don't think it shows so much about human moral corruption.
I was in no way implying that all who go against the group are moral.
No but its easy to say that one should go against a group or be considered culpable when you aren't the one in their situation fighting their struggles.
Its just as easy to say to a salary man with a shitty boss "Hey why do you take crap from that guy, have some self respect and stand up to him!" when you're not the one who has to worry if his kids will eat that night. Facts are people have priorities. We can't all afford to fight every battle over every perceived wrong in this world. Those of us who can are indeed the lucky few.
Its hard to not come away from the average German who supported hitler with some empathy for their situation you know. In a time where all hope was lost and the pride and spirit of the German people was effectively broken, can you really blame the desperate masses for wanting, wishing for a miracle?
You're equating accepting abuse to society punishing abuse victims?
I'm not sure that's a good analogy.
