"5 Greatest Myths" #4 Most people are basically good (posted for discussion)

[audtatious]

****Again, the following is simply up for discussion. It's from some blog that was pointed out to me thus who the author is probably does not matter when discussing the writings.***** - audtatious

"Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught." -J.C. Watts

A risk management and loss prevention officer of a large international corporation once postulated that accounting controls are set up in various business units to keep people honest. Did you get that? .....to keep them honest, as if to assume that people are not naturally honest. And, in point of fact, they are not as he explained:

"Ten percent of your employees will never steal, so you should not worry about them. Fifteen percent of your employees will absolutely steal from you no matter what you do, so all you can do about them is to try to catch them during or after the fact. But accounting controls are put into place for the other seventy-five percent of your employees who will steal only if given the opportunity."

In other words, most people won't do the right thing simply because it's the right thing. They will do the right thing in order to keep from getting caught. It follows, therefore, to disbelieve the Myth that most people are basically good. They are not. The real truth behind this Myth is that most people will likely do the wrong thing if given the opportunity in a consequence-free environment while no one else is watching. Evidence of this is around us every day.

Drive your car down any major freeway in any major city, for example, and turn on your signal light indicating a desire to change lanes. What do you expect will happen most of the time? Do drivers generally slow down and allow you to safely move in front of them? That would be doing the right thing, wouldn't it? But that isn't often the case, is it? Some drivers speed up in an attempt to cut you off, which is clearly doing the wrong thing. Most drivers, however, will simply maintain their speed, allowing you in front of them only to keep from hitting you. That is not the same as doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing to do; that is doing the right thing only to avoid bad consequences.

So, let me make a point of clarification here. While my thesis is the assumptive untruth of the belief that most people are basically good, the reader should not erroneously assume I am concurrently postulating that most people are basically bad. While this may appear to be an illogical dichotomy, the conflict rests in understanding that there are not two states of "good" versus "bad." There are in fact, three states: good, not good and bad. "Not good" is not the same as "bad."

My conclusion that most people are not good means only that most people will not do the right thing merely because it is the right thing; they will instead do the right thing because of their fear of the consequences of doing the wrong thing. That does not make them bad. It merely supports my definition of "good," which is always doing the right thing because and only because it is the right thing to do. Being "bad," on the other hand, means deliberately and always doing the wrong thing.

Thus, to correlate my driving example with the words of our corporate risk management and loss prevention officer:

- 10% of all drivers will slow down and allow you to move safely in front of them. That would epitomize my definition of "good," or doing the right thing merely because it is the right thing to do.

- 15% of all drivers will deliberately speed up in an unsafe and narcissistic attempt to cut you off. That would epitomize my definition of "bad," or always doing the wrong thing.

- 75% of all drivers will maintain their speed and allow you in front of them only to avoid a collision. That would epitomize my definition "not good," and thus, doing the right thing only to avoid bad consequences.Therefore, my thesis is: "Basically, most people are not good." (Thus, the Myth is re-written as truth). Most people will do the right thing only to avoid bad consequences. Remove the likelihood of those consequences, and most people will act like bungholes.

Witness the events of New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. Otherwise law abiding citizens became a marauding herd of barbaric thieves, looting everything they could carry from the shelves of abandoned stores - and not because they needed such things to survive, like bread, water and medicine. These people were ripping off power tools and electronics, like HD-TVs and DVD players, which was all the more poignant given the fact that none of them had any electrical power. Even though these people knew this wasn't the right thing to do, they did it anyway because all consequences of their behavior had been removed. They had no fear of being caught or arrested, particularly since members of the New Orleans Police Department were looting right alongside of them in many cases.

There are, of course, examples everyday on the 24-hour news channels of cases where supposedly good people don't do the right things in part because their own ego and narcissism has lulled them into denial about the possibility of ever being caught. These are people whose peers would consider them "good people," not common criminals, psychopaths, or sociopaths whose histories might predict their unscrupulous behavior. We're fascinated with such stories because we continue to believe the Myth that "most people are basically good," and cannot understand why such high profile people - who have everything going for them - would commit bad acts that torpedo their careers and in some cases ruins their lives and that of their families.

For example:

- In 1988, Pentecostal preacher Jimmy Swaggart was caught with a prostitute at a Metarie Louisiana hotel called the Travel Inn. Swaggart made a highly publicized tearful apology to his flock, but believing that he was not genuinely repentant, the Assemblies of God Church authorities defrocked Swaggart, removing his credentials and ministerial license. Three years later, Swaggart was found in the company of another prostitute, Rosemary Garcia, when he was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol in Indio, California, for driving on the wrong side of the street. Swaggart may be the best example of what a consequence-free environment looks like. Yet to be held accountable for his behavior, he is head of a religious empire allegedly worth over $100-million run by his wife and son, each of whom earn $600,000 a year salaries and drive a fleet of no less than six Mercedes. Hubris of this magnitude will assure us of yet another Swaggart scandal at some point in the future.

- Having been lauded as the fastest women runner ever, Marion Jones took an unprecedented three Gold and two Bronze medals at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney, Australia. For years, she angrily denied using steroids, only to admit in 2007 that it was all a lie. She pleaded guilty to one count of perjury when she denied using performance-enhancing drugs during a federal criminal investigation. She was stripped of her five Olympic medals and served six months in jail after also pleading guilty to a second count of lying to investigators about her association with a check-fraud scheme. Giving up over $40-million in advertising endorsements, she is today an ex-felon who is flat broke, and will go down in history as one of the greatest sports frauds of all time.

- Pete Rose is the all-time Major League Baseball leader in hits, games played, at bats, and outs. He won three World Series rings, three batting titles, one Most Valuable Player Award, two Gold Gloves, the Rookie of the Year Award, and made 17 All-Star appearances at an unprecedented five different positions. In 1989, three years after he retired as an active player, Rose agreed to permanent ineligibility from baseball amidst accusations that he had gambled on baseball games while playing for and managing the Cincinnati Reds; some accusations claimed that he bet on, and even against, the Reds. After years of public denial, in 2004, he admitted to betting on the Reds while both a player and a coach. Even staunch Rose supporters were outraged at Rose's sudden reversal, particularly when it was revealed as part of an interview for a promotional book tour he was doing to market his autobiography.

- Earlier this year, New York governor Eliot Spitzer admitted to having previously patronized a high-priced prostitution service called Emperors Club VIP where he met for over two hours with a $1,000-an-hour call girl and New York City singer going by the name Ashley Alexandra Dupré. Spitzer had at least seven liaisons with women from the agency over six months, and paid more than $15,000. In the wake of the revelations, Spitzer resigned his post as Governor amid threats of his impeachment by state lawmakers. Humiliated and disgraced, he is still under federal investigation, could be disbarred from ever practicing law, and could potentially serve jail time for using the services of an international prostitution ring and money laundering operation with links to organized crime.

These are, of course, high profile cases of "good people" who did bad things precisely because they are not good people. They thought they could get away with what they did, which is why they did what they did. If they were good people, they simply would not have engaged the services of prostitutes, or gambled on their own team or taken drugs to begin with.

But what about everyday people? Consider the astounding number of educators in this country who break their professional canon of ethics by carrying on sexual liaisons with underage students. I am not talking about Catholic Priests or other sick mother****ers who sexually abuse children. Such individuals are clearly deranged and emotionally disturbed people. I am talking about otherwise "good people" who suspend their good judgment to act out sexual fantasies or frustrations on adolescent students because they didn't think they would get caught, although they knew what they were doing was wrong.

- Rachel Holt, 35, was a science teacher at Claymont Elementary School in Delaware. In 2006, she was charged with an astounding 28 counts of first-degree rape, after she allegedly had sex with a 13 year-old boy and student of hers during an "intense weeklong affair" in her apartment. Intense? At an average of four times a day for a week, I'll say it was intense. She pleaded guilty to second-degree rape, and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. "I hope you can forgive me," she said at the sentencing. "I know what I did was wrong."

- Government teacher Allen James Cole, 34, of Travis High School in Austin Texas was arrested in May on the charge of having "an improper relationship" with an 18-year-old Travis High School student. Another teacher notified police about the inappropriate relationship between Cole and the student. According to a probable cause affidavit, the student told police she had met Cole several times at his apartment between May 6th and May 10th and that she had sex with Cole more than 20 times over that 5-day period. Well, I guess if you're going to go to jail for having illicit relations with an eighteen year old girl, you might as well get as much action as you can. Although she was past the age of consent in Texas, the state provides for criminal charges of a public school teacher who has carnal knowledge with a student, and for some pretty obvious reasons.

- Allenna Williams Ward, 23, was a middle school teacher in Clinton, South Carolina. She pled guilty, waived her right to a jury trial, and was sentenced to six years in prison for criminal sexual contact and lewd behavior with five boys ages 14 and 15. She was meeting these boys behind a restaurant, in a park, and in the school where she taught. Allenna is married and, according to those who knew her and her family, they were all "great Christian people". By the way, Allenna is Caucasian and all five youths with whom she was having sex were Black. Since she was allegedly doing two or more of them at a time in a motel room that the students themselves paid for, I somehow don't think that her "victims" were coerced, but that's another story.

- Former Houston high school teacher Adrianne Hockett, 26, was found guilty in 2007 on one count of sexual assault of a child. The victim, a 15-year-old special needs student reportedly met with Hockett in her apartment where the two engaged in sex, drank beer and smoked marijuana. Prosecutors described Hockett as a woman "thirsty for sex" who gained the trust of the boy's mother by offering to tutor him. By the way, if you were to see a picture of this woman, you might understand why she was so "thirsty for sex" and had to nail a mentally challenged boy to get any. She is one butt-ugly woman. She was sentenced to six months in prison, 10 years probation and a $10,000 fine.

- In Northwest Indiana, Amber Kay Marshall, 23, worked as a teacher's aide in the learning disability classroom when she was arrested for allegedly having sexual intercourse with one student and oral sex with two students. She later was given six years probation for her transgressions. At the time of her arrest, Marshall told police she knew what she did was illegal.

- Abbie Jane Swogger, 34, was a teacher's aide at Highlands Senior High School in Harrison, Pennsylvania. She was arrested in early 2008 for renting a hotel room where police found beer, marijuana, an open condom wrapper and at least four teenage girls and boys, including several of her 15-year-old son's friends. Though categorically denying rumors she was having sex with students from the school, Swogger was quoted as saying, "I was stupid, very stupid. I already know I was and I can understand you looking at me wrong. It's the biggest mistake I ever made in my whole life." Police allege Swogger "asked or encouraged" two 15-year-old runaway girls to have sex with her. According to a police papers, Swogger admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old boy and asked police, "How serious is that?" The one-time exotic dancer resigned three days after her arrest.

- Adrienne Laflamme, 60, yes, as in sixty-years-old, was a science teacher at the Brevard County Juvenile Detention Center in Cocoa, Florida. She was arrested in June for having a four-week heated affair with an inmate student, 17, within days of his release. The boy's mother said the teacher regularly picked him up from their home to have sex at her own residence. Laflamme had sex with the student at least 15 times, including one threesome with a 14-year-old boy. She has been charged with 15 counts of unlawful sex with minors and one count of filing a false police report.This list goes on and on. Because minors are frequently involved in cases where teachers and students become sexually involved, national statistics are hard to come by. But there are over 160 cases of student-teacher sexual misconduct since 2005 that received enough media attention to be documented. No longer an abnormal event in our daily news feeds, these teachers are generally not sexually deviant people or those with histories of emotional instability or sexual addictions. These are "good people" who believed they were in a consequence-free environment, and despite overwhelming evidence that they would get caught if they engaged in such behavior, chose to do so anyway. In essence, these were not necessarily bad people, for other than the incidents for which they were arrested or indicted, they had no history of other issues, problems or run-ins with the law. But they were not good people. They would never have engaged in such behavior if they were good people.

Despite the Myth, it has not escaped the attention of behavioral psychologists to try to shed some light on why it is that most people, if believing they are in a consequence-free environment, will go down the dark path of committing bad acts, despite otherwise being "good" people.

In one very telling experiment at Santa Clara University, divinity students were told that they had to deliver a lecture from prepared notes in a classroom across campus. Half the students were told they had to hurry to be on time, and the other half were told they had more than ample time.

On the way, the students came across a person in distress (actually an actor), who sat slumped motionless in a doorway, coughing and groaning. Shockingly, only 16 of the 40 divinity students stopped to help, most of them from the group that had ample time. To those in a hurry, the man was a distraction, a threat to their focus on giving a lecture. Ironically enough, half of them had been asked to discuss the parable of "The Good Samaritan."

So the conclusion here may be that doing the wrong thing, if simply an act of omission, may merely be a matter of being tuned in to one's surroundings and having enough time to act. But what about acts of commission, or deliberately doing something bad, like our overly amorous teachers in the bullet points above?

In a landmark Stanford University "Prison Experiment" that took place 33 years ago, the experiment started with 24 regular college guys, who took the role of either guard or prisoner. In just six days, these normal boys turned the experimental prison into a house of horrors. The guards began to use their power to dominate, to control, and ultimately, to crush the prisoners. Within 36 hours, one of these normally healthy kids had an emotional breakdown, and the same thing happened on day three, four and five. What researchers discovered was how any normal "good" person can quickly succumb to acting badly under the right conditions. They drew the conclusion that it wasn't just a few bad apples causing bad behavior, but a “bad barrel.” The system itself created the cauldron for bad behavior to grow and be nourished. It's the same philosophy behind a “mob mentality" and the Katrina looting sprees - all stemming from a lack of consequences.

Unfortunately, this experiment only serves to reinforce my premise that most people are basically not good. The researchers did not delve more deeply into their own conclusions to explain why people are not more prone to do the right thing merely because it is the right thing to do, and regardless of whether or not they are in a consequence-free environment. Or perhaps more to the point, the experiment created an environment that tolerated bad behavior and showed the inclination that most people have a willingness go there, but not why they have a willingness to go there.

The penchant that man has for bad behavior has never been better illustrated than through the 1974 Milgram experiments at Yale University.

Research Psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused of war crimes at the Nuremberg Criminal trials following World War II. The common defense for those prosecuted often was based on "obedience" and that they were just following the orders of their superiors.

In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram. They were asked to administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a "learner" for each mistake the learner made when answering questions incorrectly. The fictitious story given to these teachers was that the experiment was exploring the effects of punishment for incorrect responses on learning behavior. The teacher was not aware that the learner in the study was actually an actor merely pretending discomfort as the teacher increased the intensity of the electric shock after each incorrect answer.

If any teacher expressed concern about the discomfort that the learner was experiencing, Milgram would verbally encourage them to continue. Sixty percent of the teachers obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale and no subject stopped before reaching 300-volts when the actor was indicating severe pain at the hands of the teacher administering these artificial shocks.

The conclusion? When an environment tolerates bad behavior, or encourages it, most people lack the presence of conscience or moral character to resist doing bad things. Like the Santa Clara prison guard experiment, the Milgram experiment only reinforces the premise that most people are basically not good. But neither experiment explains why.

And maybe the answer is, you really cannot discover or explain why. That's just the way it is. Man is a ruthless animal and most people have not evolved to the point they can overcome their inherent nature with a higher sense of moral purpose or duty. Luckily some of us have. About ten percent of us.

And next time you're in trouble in an environment when no one is looking, you better hope you run across one of the ten-percenters. Because otherwise, fifteen percent of the people you run across will do bad things, like take advantage of you and the other 75% will probably just ignore you and go on their merry way.

[Cold_Zero]

Not that this guy would accept my rational, but I don't believe that people are basically good. Pretty much we are self serving, narcistic and do good when it serves our purpose.

But really, to this atheist, does it matter if people are basically good or basically not good. How do you quantify basically and what does it matter if a person is only 40% good and 60% bad as compared to 80% good and 20% bad. In this day of moral relativism, most people probably dont even care if a person is only 10% good at times, as long as it doesn’t cut into their bottom line.

I will shut up now as to not plunge this discussion into a religious debate.

[ishkabibble]

People are not basically good or evil, they just are. Just like the rest of the animal kingdom.

Oh yeah, except for "our ability to compose music" which separates us from the rest of the species

[Qwerty1942]

Oh yeah, except for "our ability to compose music" which separates us from the rest of the species

[audtatious]

He has some interesting viewpoints and seems to swing at both sides of politics.

[Qwerty1942]

You misunderstood, I was laughing at the idea that music composition separates us from the rest of the species on this planet.

[HashiriyaS14]

I am generally in agreement with this article.

I do believe that most people generally have an INCLINATION to do good, a predisposition to WANT to do the right thing. At the same time, I believe that our base animal natures are tilted towards trying to secure advantages in life at any cost, and thus these two elements are always in conflict.

Thus, when we can do good and it doesn't cost us an advantage or require a sacrifice, almost all people will do good.

I think the author would probably agree with me.

I'm dying to know what Cold_Zero is getting at in his post. First, I'd like to know by what means he drew the conclusion that the author is an athiest, and also I'd like to know how someone who acts "good" 80% of the time is not obviously and objectively better for society than someone who acts "good" 60% of the time.

[audtatious]

Maybe Bud looked up the authors other myths to see that he is an indeed an athiest