The Experiment

I just finished watching the movie, The Experiment, with Adrien Brody and Forest Whitaker.

The story is one where 26 guys agree to take part in a sociological experiment. In this experiment some of the men are asked to play the role of prison guards while the other men are asked to be the inmates. In the end the men descend into anarchy, abandoning decency and morality to become little more than raging animals.

The beginning of the movie sets up Travis (Brody) as a bit of a pacifist. We see him marching in a war protest and even answer questions in the pre-test interview to the effect that notions of justice (or as he puts it, "an eye for an eye for an eye) are inferior and that the best path is to "turn the other cheek."

For me, this movie asks a provocative question, "Is the nature of man good or evil?"

The movie is draws from several real psychological/sociological tests that revealed similar moral break downs during the course of the experiment.

As a society we have accepted that a person is a "good" person if they don't murder people or break too many laws on a regular basis. It is a moral litmus test, if you will, that helps us to differentiate good people from bad people. However, studies like those mimicked in the movie show us that given differing situations a person who is considered good can quickly become a "bad" person.

In the real life studies, subjects interviewed after the experiment ended were shocked and horrified by just how far they had been willing to go. Many expressed that they considered themselves to be a "good" person and that before the study they would have said they were incapable of committing the kinds of acts they had done during the study.

Nietzsche believed the heart of a man to be full of darkness, and I have to agree with him on this one point.

But let me take this discussion in a slightly different direction for a moment.

In my opinion, a major difference between me and a modern liberal is that I accept and acknowledge that the heart of a man is wicked and not good. Because of this I am wary and uncomfortable with allowing more and more power to be centralized and relinquishing my freedoms that protect me from the threat of tyranny; regardless of the "good" that is promised to come as a result.

I realize that for civilization and community to exist we must all sacrifice a certain amount of autonomy and liberty. I just think that when we are called upon to make these sacrifices we should do so with the stipulation that there be a great deal of accountability and oversight involved in the exchange. I also believe it is in all of our best interest to ensure that those we entrust with the responsibility to lead our government never be allowed to become so powerful as to risk becoming tyrants.

To that end, I don't believe it wise to vote for representation that openly or by action supports larger governments systems, entitlement programs, or Utopian socioeconomic theories such as Socialism or Communism.

A bit much

So, it has been a while since I last posted, but given the fact that there is now a whole new person in our little family I feel justified in the delay. But delay no more.

So what has been sticking in my craw lately?

Labels.

I don't mean product packaging, I mean the use of inflammatory terms to describe something or someone you disagree with.

Yesterday I was involved in a conversation about using cameras to catch drivers who run red lights. Beside the fact that I was dismayed by how many people seem to condone breaking traffic laws, the thing that really got me all lathered up was the fact that a few people branded red light cameras as "un-American" and "Communist."

Really?!?

Communist? What does the method of enforcing an existing traffic law have to do with a sociopolitical system of communal ownership? Nothing that I can see.

Un-American? Are they claiming that red light cameras are a foreign idea that is incompatible with our form of government? I don't see how that is accurate either.

I guess they were trying to say that they felt red light cameras to be intrusive, but why not just say that?

What is the purpose of such language? What it looks like to me is an attempt to shut down conversation.

On the other side of the political spectrum there are liberals that use terms like "fascist" or "Hitler" to describe conservative ideas and people.

Is it really that hard to base an argument on solid fact that they have to resort to juvenile name calling?

Now don't get me wrong. There are appropriate ways to use all of these terms.

If we are discussing centralized economic control or state ownership of means of production then the label "Communist" is very fitting. I would even go so far as to say I would probably even give a pass to someone using the term to describe ideas of classless society or communal ownership.

In retrospect, could the real issue be that many do not actually know the origin and definition of the terms they are using?

I guess that would explain much. After all, if you are simply regurgitating something you heard or read previously how would you know that your chosen term is quite inappropriate for the statement you are making.