It is a very arguable subject on whether or not people are born with good intentions, and therefore taught by others the ‘evil’ side of their personality. Whether it is the absence of ethical conduct in human nature, or just the way one perceives a situation, evil seems to be prominent in our everyday lives. Humans seem to have a moral code that follows them with every decision they make, yet despite the laws of morality and society, people of this world still seem to behave inhumanely because of the act of self-preservation, human interest, and who exactly the authority figure is at the time.
One of the most basic human instincts, prevalent in everyone, is the act of self-preservation, which can lead to the dismissal of their morals in times of distress. In Lord of the Flies, the boys’ subconscious takes over, allowing a much more ‘savage’ side of them to hinder their decision making. This is exhibited when the boys accidentally become too rough with what they think is the beast attacking them, but actually happens to be Simon. The second their minds went into survival mode, they battered him until his death, not noticing it was their friend all along until the next morning. Their judgement was so clouded with the idea of protecting themselves, that they did not come to their senses while brutally attacking the poor boy, who was only trying to help. This act of violence is a direct example of doing something at their own self-convenience, regardless of the costs. Because of the lack of adult supervision, and uncivilization on the island, the boys had no remorse for the death of their friend, even Piggy denying his participation by stating, “…Anyway, you said I was only on the outside.” (157). Ralph followed it up with the same thing, claiming “[he] was on the outside too.” (157). The boys convinced themselves that it was a matter of the others, and fully out of their control. It is clear that people are prone to become less empathetic, or desensitized, when there is a factor of self gain, despite the fact that others may be harmed in the process. The boys further prove that humans will do anything to survive, including throwing out their morals and harming a friend.
Paul Bloom, author of “Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil,” believes that “We are by nature indifferent, even hostile to strangers; we are prone towards parochialism and bigotry. Some of our instinctive emotional responses… spur us to do terrible things.” (CNN). There are many instances in modern life where people seem to become evil, or vicious, towards others. The moment when or where one decides to do so, depends on what exactly they have interest in, or favor over something else. In an experiment done by Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, a series of tests were done to children ranging from the age of three months up until five months old. These tests were used to determine if babies, whose brains had barely began developing, understand right from wrong, or evil from good. Before one of the test, the children were given a snack that they enjoyed. Then, during the experiment, there was a puppet who was also enjoying the snack that the children had have previously, and one who did not. The children seemed to only choose the puppet that had the same snack as them.They wanted the one who was unlike them to be harmed, or mistreated, just because of their different taste of food. This “concludes that infants prefer those ‘who harm… others’ who are unlike them.” (Baby Lab). By using infants in the study, Yale exemplified that the need or want to ‘harm’ others who are unlike us, could be a behavior people are born with, and is therefore human instinct. Unless taught otherwise, people will grow up and continue to act the way they do, being interested in what they think is right, and therefore acting inhumanely, and possibly be looked down upon in society. Nowadays, being impartial to others who are not like you, is a very impolite thing to do. Something that children who are only three months old wouldn’t know any better from. But, it is still observable in many people's actions that they, in fact, act upon their own human interest, and not in the best interest of others around them.
Without an authority figure to keep order, chaos can break loose at any moment. This is true in any situation where there is a superior and subordinate: school, work, and most famously, prison. In the Stanford Prison Experiment by Philip Zimbardo, the limits were pushed off those who willing agreed to participate in the study. Once brought to the ‘prison’, aka the Stanford psychology department, the ‘guards’ adapted quickly to their new roles, and soon began to dominate the prisoners. The tyrannical guards forced the prisoners into submission, and the prisoners agreed, until they didn’t. As soon as they were all settled, a resentment started to form, and one of the prisoners “Resist[ed] what one guard was telling [him] to do.” (Prison experiment thing). This caused an uproar in the other prisoners, when they realized that they too could passively resist the guard's orders. One of the prisoners even refused to eat, another had ‘mental breakdowns’ where he would scream as loud and long as possible. The guards also proved to be a problem, given the freedom to do whatever they pleased to the prisoners, with no specific guidelines. Zimbardo pointed out that “about a third of the guards became tyrannical in their arbitrary use of power.” (Konnikova). Because of the circumstance, the prisoner’s felt the need to act inhumanely, and against the guards, in order to protect themselves, and get what they wanted. In the 1961 experiment by social psychologist Stanley Milgram, authority also seemed to have a great effect on people. Men took part in a study about the effects of punishment on learning. During the study, the participants were both assigned different roles, one the teacher and the other the subject. The teacher was given the job to help the subject in remembering a series of words. If answered wrong, an electric shock was delivered to the subject by the teacher, and would increasingly be a higher voltage every time. The teacher figures refused to continue to hurt the subject, as a normal human should react when another is in pain, yet, when yelled at by the experimenter, the teacher continued to deliver the shocks to the students. After the experiment, the teacher was asked why he continued administering the shocks. He replied with “I was doing what I was supposed to do… so I’m just doing my part.” (abc news). In this situation, the authority figure was the only reason stopping the man from shocking the student. He only continued to do so because it was his duty for the experiment, and he was technically being forced. This also proves that when there is a given control figure, the actions of a person can change to doing something completely against what they would do.
Though some believe that all humans are born naturally good, people have a sense of inhumanity despite the laws of morality and society. Disregard of morals is brought upon by the act of self-preservation and to better a situation for one’s self interest. The certain things someone has a likine to also plays a part, and can determine how exactly one will treat others, based on their likings as well. Last, the presence of an authority figure will most definitely change the way someone treats others, or even themselves. It all depends on where they are. Morals are out the window. And idk what else so put in my conclusion. ah!!!