When people are stuck in a total system, their moral vision can become blurred, broken down systematically. We know that the social climate in an organization can foster particular attitudes of superiority and denigration of others, leading to unethical behavior. (e.g., Enron’s glee at robbing grandmothers’pensions). For example, Greg Smith wrote recently of a system-based moral breakdown in Goldman Sachs (link in his New York Times Op-Ed). Describing a corrupting ‘culture’ within the firm, Smith writes: “You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.” In these situations, and situations much more total and intense, values become mis-shaped or confused. In this case, aggressive or self-aggrandizing actions were condoned and increasingly more attractive. A system can also encourage a paralyzing fear, as among the populace in Nazi-occupied countries when Jews were being rounded up for extermination. Or, one can submit to a learned helplessness, especially as a child in a traumatizing home (later translated to situations as an adult).
A powerful total system can dictate particular actions, and we can succumb, leaving aside our own skills, intuitions, and deliberations. This is especially true for unfamiliar, shocking or intense situations. Our better natures are overwhelmed.
Prisons are another example. Prison is a total system, in that it is the only system inmates’ experience. It is also highly structured, regulated, monitored, and maintained. Phil Zimbardo’s famous prison experiment demonstrated the effects of a total-system prison on presumed normal male college students (Zimbardo, 2007). The breakdown of moral vision in the participants was so fast that the experiment had to be shut down after only a few days instead of going for its planned two weeks.
Imagine solitary confinement (increasingly used): being in a prison cell for 23 hours of the day and the other 1 hour is spent alone, walking around a highly guarded, walled-in outdoor space. This solitary confinement is not just solitary in the sense of being totally separated from other people, but also in being under only one system of carefully constructed experience. It is double lonely, breaking down our social and creative needs and desires. Since humans, as mammals, are not meant to be alone, it can lead to permanent psychosis even after the prison term is ended (Haney, 2003; Travis & Waul, 2003).
Relationship between systems and the moral self
Systems, in the form of situational pressures, interact with our capacities and conditioning, prompting specific moral orientations (Safety, Engagement, Imagination). When a situation activates an ethic, that ethic guides our perception, goals, expectations and potential actions. For example, in emotionally warm and supportive environments, our engagement ethic can flourish. But when we feel threatened our vision narrows and we notice what might useful for self-protection (e.g., weapon, hiding place).
An individual can also privilege one of the three ethical systems based on conditioning or practice, making it a primary disposition. In this case, one of the three ethics may become a dispositional orientation, a primary or base position. For example, secure attachment in early life and the good caregiving that accompanies it, builds empathy and social wherewithal that become habitual. However, when our environment is experienced as perpetually threatening, self-protection may become our primary ethical viewpoint (Eisler & Levine, 2002).
In addition, each of the three major ethical orientations (Safety, Engagement, Imagination) described in the previous post can also be combined in various ways, resulting in more nuanced ways of acting and thinking. For example, the engagement ethic, in combination with imagination, represent a communal imagination or mindful morality. But these combinations are not always positive.
There is a particularly sinister combination that can result in the type of calculated and vicious actions shown in the Afghanistan murders. In fact, this combination is likely behind most human to human destruction. If the Safety Ethic is the dominate disposition from which we act, and there is sufficient mental space to use our imagination and creativity, the result is a “functionally reptilian organism armed with the cunning of the neocortical brain” (Lewis, Amini, & Lannon, 2000, p. 218).
Primitive emotions, such as anger, can fuel creativity, forming a vicious imagination, driven by a clever seeking of control. Ruthlessness or destroying anything that gets in the way of maintaining or regaining power can be viewed as a moral imperative. In this state, killing may be used to regain a sense of power or enact rage over not having the power needed to establish a sense of security.
Whoever systematically murdered the men, women and children in Afghanistan was potentially using a vicious imagination, methodically stalking, murdering, and then deliberately gathering and burning their bodies.
We can change systems
Systems can evolve in unpredictable and unwanted ways, creating situations where we are required to act in ways we never imagined. In the case of Goldman Sachs’ corrupt culture, Greg Smith recommended that Goldman Sachs, “Weed out the morally bankrupt people, no matter how much money they make for the firm. And get the culture right again, so people want to work here for the right reasons (Smith, 2012).” In making these recommendations, Greg Smith directs our attention to the fact that those who participate in systems have the ability to change them, and thereby change the situations systems create.
Note: For a more detailed look at this topic, see the chapter titled ‘An Educational Model for Teaching a Nonkilling Ethic’ in Nonkilling Psychology, published through Center for Global Nonkilling. The title is available for free in .pdf format or through Amazon.
Allman, J., Hakeem, A., Erwin, J., Ninchinsky, E., & Hof, P. (2001). The Anterior Cingulate Cortex: The Evolution of an Interface between Emotion and Cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 935, 107-117.
Anderson, S., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Tranel, D., & Damasio, A. (1999). Impairment of social and moral behavior related to early damage in human preforntal cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1032-1037.
Arpaly, N. (2003). Unprincipled virtue: An inquiry into moral agency. New York: Oxford Press.
Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1458-1463.
Cervone, D. (1999). Bottom-up explanation in personality psychology: The case of cross-situational coherence. In D. Cervone, & Y. Shoda (Eds.), he coherence of personality: Social-cognitive bases of personality consistency, variability, and organization (pp. 303-341). New York: Guilford Press.
Darley, J., & Batson, C. D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
Darwin, C. (1871/1981). The Descent of Man. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
de Quervain, D. J.-F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., et al. (2004). The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment. Science, 305, 1254-1258.
Eisler, R., & Levine, D. (2002). Nurture, nature, and caring: We are not prisoners of our genes. Brain and Mind, 3, 9-52.
Giedd, J., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N., & al, e. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 10(2), 861-863.
Goldberg, E. (2002). The Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and "supermax" confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 124-156.
Hedges, C. (2011). The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress. New York: Nation Books.
Hogarth, R. M. (2001). Educating Intuition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jost, J., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339-375.
Junkins, T., & Narvaez, D. (2012). An Educational Model for Teaching a Nonkilling Ethic. In D. J. Christie, & J. E. Pim (Eds.), Nonkilling Psychology (pp. 295-319). Honolulu: Center for Global Nonkilling.
Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually Responsive Orientation Between Mothers and Their Young Children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 191-195.
Kodituwakku, P., Kalberg, W., & May, P. (1999). Effects of Prenatal Alcohol Exposure on Executive Functioning. Alcohol Research and Health: Alcohol-Related Birth Defects: An Update, 25(3).
Kruesi, M., Hibbs, E., Zahn, T., Keysor, C., Hamburger, S., Bartko, J., et al. (1992). 2-year prospective follow-up study of children and adolescents with disruptive behavior disorders. Prediction by cerebrospinal fluid 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, homovanillic acid, and autonomic measures? Archives of General Psychiatry, 49(6), 429-435.
Lewis, T., Amini, F., & Lannon, R. (2000). A General Theory of Love. New York: Vintage.
Loye, D. (2002). The Moral Brain. Brain and Mind, 3, 133-150.
Luna, B., Thulborn, K., Munoz, D., Merriam, E., Garver, K., & Minshew, N. (2001). Maturation of widely distibuted brain functions subserves cognitive development. NeuroImage, 13(5), 786-793.
MacLean, P. (1990). The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York: Plenum.
Mathews, V., Kronenberger, W., Wang, Y., Lurito, J., Lowe, M., & Dunn, D. (2005). Media violence exposure and frontal lobe activation measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in aggressive and nonaggressive adolescents. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography, 29(3), 287-292.
Meier, B., Robinson, M., & Wilkowski, B. (2006). Turning the other cheek: Agreeableness and the regulation of aggression-related primes. Psychological Science, 17(5), 136-142.
Mischel, W. (1973). Towards a Cognitive Social Learning Theory Reconceptualization of Personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
Narvaez, D. (2008). Triune Ethics: The neurobioogical roots of our multiple moralities. New Ideas in Psychology, 26, 95-119.
Newman, M., Holden, G., & Delville, Y. (2005). Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 343-357.
Nisbett, R., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of Honor. New York: Westview Press.
Ochsner, K., & Gross, J. (2007). The Neural Architecture of Emotion Regulation. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 87-108). New York: Guilford Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., & Lyon, D. (1989). Evidence for Terror Management Theory: I. The Effects of Morality Salience on Reactions to Those Who Violate or Uphold Cultural Values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 681-690.
Schore, A. (1994). Affect Regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shah, T., & Bowley, G. (2012, March 11). U.S. Sergeant Is Said to Kill 16 Civilians in Afghanistan. Retrieved March 15, 2012, from New York Times
Shaver, P., & Mikulincer, M. (2007). Adult Attachment Strategies and the Regulation of Emotion. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 446-465). New York: Guilford Press.
Smith, G. (2012, March 14). Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs. Retrieved April 15, 2012, from New York Times
Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Battistich, V. (2002). Teaching and schooling effects on moral/prosocial development. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 566-603). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Staub, E. (1992). The Roots of Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners Once Removed, The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Weaver, I., Szyf, M., & Meaney, M. (2002). From maternal care to gene expression: DNA methylation and the maternal programming of stress responses. Endocrine Research, 28, 699.
Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. New York: Random House.