Happy Atheist Forum

Can culture/ideology turn a good person bad or visa versa?

It has been said that a bad ideology can make a good person do bad things. Could it also be the case that a good ideology could make a bad person do good things?

I have knocked up this little graphic to aid the discussion.


The vertical axis deals with the individual.
The horizontal axis deals with the culture/ideology in which the individual lives.
The two curves represent the proportion of the people/cultures that exist at a given point on the continuum between good<>bad.
Thus the majority of people are morally neutral and the majority of cultures are morally neutral (this assumption is itself debatable).

So a very good person that lives in a very good culture/ideology falls into the bottom left Good/Good (GG) category, while a very bad person that lives in a very bad culture/ideology falls into the top right Bad/Bad (BB) category.

So can a person who is essentially bad but lives in an essentially good culture be influenced to behave in a good way, or equally can an essentially good person that lives in a bad society be influenced to behave in a bad way?

Is there an intrinsic moral compass in an individual or is that compass built by the culture/ideology in which the person grows up?

This is interesting, as over the last six or seven years, i've come to realize that life isn't fair, there is no real justice, etc.

We all -- reguardless of age -- have had crummy past experiences, especially when you're a teen and can't grasp much. None the less, we are shaped in many ways BY those who surround us.
When I was a child, like seven in grade school, I used to love stealing toys, pens, whatever tiny thing in class I could stuff in my pants. Now, being that young I had no one to teach me why stealing was bad.  ((My parents were aweful parents. Seriously.))
One day, I stole a tiny sock puppet and my teacher caught me. I had no idea what was going to happen, but I remember feeling very guilty. She just sat me aside and explained to me WHY stealing was wrong. I never thought about how i'd feel if someone stole from me until after that day.

I really love that I had to go through that to learn . Sorry for the rant...

I guess what i'm trying to say is: sometimes we have to get caught to know what's bad. Though quite honestly, good parenting goes a really long way. Even if a kid or teen is in a bad situation, if they are taught right, they know to say no, walk away, ect.

I'm proud to never tried alcohol til I was 22. Also, I hate it, so I don't drink. I never smoked either.  We are influenced all around, but something deep inside usually says "hey, this is bad...  I shouldn't be doing this..."

I don't think there's much doubt a "good" culture would lessen the occurrence of bad acts.

I'll loosely define my subjective good as wishing people well, doing well by people and other life if you can reasonably do so.  I'm not really interested in weird cultural interpretations that think female circumcision is good.

There's probably not much doubt a good culture/upbringing will help a person think good thoughts, bad experiences can give birth to monsters.

You could have two people living separately on each side of an island , the same environment for both and no interaction with other people.  I think there would be some hereditary difference, one may be more likely to perform a benevolent act with no perceived self interest.  Freeing a bird from fishing line, turning an upturned beetle right way up.  I think their would be hereditary influences on empathy, much good flows from empathy.

I think it may be more appropriate to say that any change in ideology will produce a significant change in the behavior of an individual, good or bad. Most individuals are raised within a culture, and that cultural environment has a large effect on their behavior. However, it is easy to forget that even within a cultural environment, there are many thousands of mitigating circumstances that modify behavior and effect that particular individual.

It would be a mistake to think of any culture as a homogenous thing, and even within one particular culture, there are many variations and changes happening as one speaks. As far as behavior is concerned, towards good or bad, there is probably some inherent structures of humanity, and some environmental factors as well.

My thoughts are about which came first. Who exactly makes up the 'good culture' other than the good people? It can be a vicious circle or a harmonious one I guess.

I'm pretty sure that cultures evolve independently of what's "good" or "bad".

If you're talking about customs, it can be something as simple as daily superstition and religion that shapes cultural beliefs. If your talking about fundamental principles about what's evil and good, I've never seen a culture that deviated from the standard ones and didn't self destruct. It's human nature, most likely.

Just what is "good" and what is "bad"? Why would a western culture be any better (or worse) than, for example, an African or Asian culture? I think that most people consider the culture that they grew up in is the best.  Personally, I think that all cultures have some bad and good characteristics.

Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

I knew the 'what is good and bad' comment would come up as they are subjective and mutable as humanity's social conscience evolves. But putting that massive issue to one side for a moment it would appear that people are generally a product of the society they grow up in. If this is so there is no personal moral compass, just that which is built into us during our childhood?

I think there's an argument that as much influence as nature and nurture have on an individual, sometimes shit happens despite nature and nurture.  Sociopaths and psychopaths happen in good societies.  Are these bad people?  They don't necessarily think so.  Their view of good/bad is skewed to their own emotional deficiencies.  These sorts of things happen in the animal kingdom as well.  My experience that taught me that homosexuality was both normal and morally acceptable was watching the animal channel.  There was a program on elephants.  There was one young bull elephant that seemed to have a psychological disorder.  He displayed odd behavior that was at times even dangerous to the herd, and did not display the ability to learn from the discipline of the herd.  He was kicked out of the herd.  As an adult, he tried mounting females AND males from herds he happened upon, and killed a couple elephants in what the show's narrator called cold blood.  This taught me that animals have many of the same mental illnesses humans have.

Now before anybody gets mad, I'm not saying homosexuality is a mental illness... it isn't.  The American Psychological Association is VERY clear on this.  My degree is in social psychology, and I definitely agree with the APA.  What I'm saying is that when I saw animals have mental illnesses, it made me wonder what else animals and humans have in common that would surprise me.  Suicide, homosexuality, and recreational sex also surprised me.  When I saw that homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom, and that the other animals don't rebel against and kill the homosexual animals, I realized that the human species is really the only one that considers homosexuality abnormal. 

Anyway, tangents aside, I don't think there's any rule about nature vs. nurture that you also can't find many exceptions to.

An innate ability to get on with others should be of benefit to a species so natural selection should favour it.  Not everyone would inherit the same level of sociability.  Benoboes are nicer people than chimps, some dog breeds are supposed to have more agreeable temperaments.

Why wouldn't a person be born with a higher or lower propensity for benevolent socialisation?  I wouldn't describe this as a moral compass.

Quote from: Tank on July 24, 2011, 12:09:52 PM
Can culture/ideology turn a good person bad or visa versa?

Absolutely yes. The behaviour of groups has profound effect on individuals. We even have experimental evidence for this in the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).

We can also find countless instances in history where group adoption of ideologies has lead to aberrant behaviour. From genocide in Rwanda (even though the Hutu/Tootsie distinction was a bogus colonial myth) to the eerily cheerful 'exit videos' filmed by Heaven's Gate cultists prior to their suicides.

The fact is there is something deep in our natures that leads to conformity. If society does ill then odds are we will do ill as members of that society.

I am sure that most people reading this will instinctively disagree and feel that they are 'independent' and do hold views different from those around them; that they would stand up against bad ideologies. However the norm is conformity. We are not the individual moral agents we like to suppose.

Please note the derail regarding homosexuality has been removed and merged into this thread A discussion on homosexuality (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7711.0)

Quote from: penfold on July 28, 2011, 07:51:00 PM

Quote from: Tank on July 24, 2011, 12:09:52 PM
Can culture/ideology turn a good person bad or visa versa?

Absolutely yes. The behaviour of groups has profound effect on individuals. We even have experimental evidence for this in the Stanford prison experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment).

We can also find countless instances in history where group adoption of ideologies has lead to aberrant behaviour. From genocide in Rwanda (even though the Hutu/Tootsie distinction was a bogus colonial myth) to the eerily cheerful 'exit videos' filmed by Heaven's Gate cultists prior to their suicides.

The fact is there is something deep in our natures that leads to conformity. If society does ill then odds are we will do ill as members of that society.

I am sure that most people reading this will instinctively disagree and feel that they are 'independent' and do hold views different from those around them; that they would stand up against bad ideologies. However the norm is conformity. We are not the individual moral agents we like to suppose.

Then what about the influences of a good culture? Are they as strong or do 'bad' people behave badly irrespective of the society they grow up in?

Quote from: Tank on July 29, 2011, 03:56:42 PM
Then what about the influences of a good culture? Are they as strong or do 'bad' people behave badly irrespective of the society they grow up in?

Well I slightly object to the notion of 'good' and 'bad' people and 'good' or 'bad' cultures. Obviously there are personality traits which are inherently dangerous, the most extreme example being psychopathy, and we might reasonably call such people 'bad'. However these rare antisocial personalities aside, most people are pretty morally neutral. I prefer to talk of actions, rather than people or cultures, as being good or bad.

I think what is meant by a 'good culture' would be a culture where the citizenry tend to behave well. One interesting example is re-offending rates. People placed in the brutalising prison system are more likely to re-offend than those who are punished within the community (at least this is so in the uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/jail-less-effective-community-service). So we might want to say that prison is a 'bad culture' because it engenders bad behaviour.

In that sense I think the question you've asked is backward. We should look at the behaviour of people within a culture to determine if a culture is 'good' or 'bad' (rather than talking of 'good' or 'bad' cultures as having an effect upon behaviour).

edit
------------
That is not to say the effect of the group on the individual isn't great, merely that the culture itself is not determining as to the morality of the situation. Morality, at least to my mind, is a function of behaviour, not beliefs.

Someone with ADD may behave in a way that is considered bad, or at least annoying in our society.
In times past they may have been very useful, being ever vigilant, handy with a club and making leopards think twice before bothering their tribe.
A future society may do a better job of fitting them in through better drugs or some kind of enlightened embrace of their nature.

If I've made an ignorant reference to ADD that offends anyone please feel free to correct me.

Quote from: penfold on July 30, 2011, 01:39:00 AM

Quote from: Tank on July 29, 2011, 03:56:42 PM
Then what about the influences of a good culture? Are they as strong or do 'bad' people behave badly irrespective of the society they grow up in?

Well I slightly object to the notion of 'good' and 'bad' people and 'good' or 'bad' cultures. Obviously there are personality traits which are inherently dangerous, the most extreme example being psychopathy, and we might reasonably call such people 'bad'. However these rare antisocial personalities aside, most people are pretty morally neutral. I prefer to talk of actions, rather than people or cultures, as being good or bad.

Sometimes asking an open naive question stimulates an interesting debate/discussion. I don't have a position to promote/defend I'm interested in what people think. I may form an opinion in due course. The use of 'good' and 'bad' was an artifice required to create a starting point  ;D

Quote from: penfold on July 30, 2011, 01:39:00 AM
I think what is meant by a 'good culture' would be a culture where the citizenry tend to behave well. One interesting example is re-offending rates. People placed in the brutalising prison system are more likely to re-offend than those who are punished within the community (at least this is so in the uk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/04/jail-less-effective-community-service). So we might want to say that prison is a 'bad culture' because it engenders bad behaviour.

In that sense I think the question you've asked is backward. We should look at the behaviour of people within a culture to determine if a culture is 'good' or 'bad' (rather than talking of 'good' or 'bad' cultures as having an effect upon behaviour).

Now this last point is very interesting, I shall definitely cogitated about it.

Quote from: penfold on July 30, 2011, 01:39:00 AM
edit
------------
That is not to say the effect of the group on the individual isn't great, merely that the culture itself is not determining as to the morality of the situation. Morality, at least to my mind, is a function of behaviour, not beliefs.

Then what informs behaviour other than morality? Or is morality an abstract idea used by people to justify an emotionally motivated action?

Quote from: Tank on July 30, 2011, 07:49:48 AM
Then what informs behaviour other than morality? Or is morality an abstract idea used by people to justify an emotionally motivated action?

That's a deep question.

There are many factors that impinge upon behaviour including, as your OP suggests, culture and ideology. In general the effects of groups are important. There is a lovely experiment (I've forgotten the name so I'm afraid I can't reference, if anyone knows please post a link) which shows this point well: The subject (who is unaware they are taking part in an experiment), gets in a lift. In the lift are three other people (working for the experiment), they all ride the lift facing away from the door. Despite the inherent absurdity of riding the lift facing the wrong way, over 90% of subjects ended up turning away from the door, so as to match the behaviour of the group!

[In my own life - when at school I had compulsory daily chapel, I would not bow my head during prayer. Even though I knew that nobody cared I always found it psychologically uncomfortable to be sitting upright in a sea of bowed heads. These days, if I find myself in church, I bow along with the rest of them - it's just easier to conform to the group.]

As for morality and its impact upon behaviour that is much more complex. I think in general we are all pretty astute at judging good from bad behaviour when we encounter it (leaving aside the vexed question of whether we are correct or not). So morality influences our behaviour insofar as we can pre-judge our own putative actions. Having said that, my experience is that I tend to reach a decision about what I am going to do, then hunt around for a moral justification afterwards; but I don't know how far that is true of others.


edit
-------

found it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8zlk9TZ4bA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8zlk9TZ4bA)

How do we define what is a good cultural influence and what is a bad cultural influence? What causes society to evolve in a positive manner from a negative?

I think by looking at some of the recent natural disasters it has highlighted what cultural influences are better when people are in times of need, for example Japan was criticized for its focus on the society over the individual but when the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear scare hit it showed how positive this cultural influence was with people having a very similar approach to the British "keep calm and carry on". On the opposite Hurricane Katrina showed how a focus on individualism lead to the violence and looting that exacerbated the situation.

Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2011, 06:15:27 PM
How do we define what is a good cultural influence and what is a bad cultural influence? What causes society to evolve in a positive manner from a negative?

I think by looking at some of the recent natural disasters it has highlighted what cultural influences are better when people are in times of need, for example Japan was criticized for its focus on the society over the individual but when the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear scare hit it showed how positive this cultural influence was with people having a very similar approach to the British "keep calm and carry on". On the opposite Hurricane Katrina showed how a focus on individualism lead to the violence and looting that exacerbated the situation.

I agree the definitions are critical  to progress and outcome of the discussion. Should a behaviour be classified on its combined effects on the person carrying out the behaviour and and the subject of the behaviour?

Would'nt it be appropriate to at least define 'good'? Obviously, we are all influenced to certain behaviors by many, many factors, but what is meant by 'good', here, in this discussion?

I think I have to pick up what Penfold said and run with it. Good and Bad are just labels for a value system.
What is good for one person might be bad for another.

If my children are starving to death and I can't find any other way to earn money so I rob you and steal your money.
Its good for my family but bad for you.

Some might say it is bad for society but I don't believe society actually exists.

Without going deep into sociologal argument and Frederick Tonnies' ideas about Community & Business
(Gemeinschaft & Gesellschaft), I don't really believe it truely exists other than a fairy story. No, I'm not a Commie.

I just realize no one truly cares about what is going on in the world except as it affects them and their family.
Our elected governments are in it for themselves. They get power and wealth but they don't really care.

Equally I have to ask, how do we measure "bad". If I walk into a bank with a shotgun and steal a million dollars
is that any better or worse than a white collar criminal who might embezzle or defraud and steal 100 million dollars ?

Quote from: Evilbeagle on August 18, 2011, 01:02:15 PM
I think I have to pick up what Penfold said and run with it. Good and Bad are just labels for a value system.
What is good for one person might be bad for another.

If my children are starving to death and I can't find any other way to earn money so I rob you and steal your money.
Its good for my family but bad for you.

Some might say it is bad for society but I don't believe society actually exists.

Without going deep into sociologal argument and Frederick Tonnies' ideas about Community & Business
(Gemeinschaft & Gesellschaft), I don't really believe it truely exists other than a fairy story. No, I'm not a Commie.

I just realize no one truly cares about what is going on in the world except as it affects them and their family.
Our elected governments are in it for themselves. They get power and wealth but they don't really care.

Equally I have to ask, how do we measure "bad". If I walk into a bank with a shotgun and steal a million dollars
is that any better or worse than a white collar criminal who might embezzle or defraud and steal 100 million dollars ?

So, 'good' in your view only exists in the subjective sense? If this is so, then your robbery scenario is true. But, why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'? Such a posture is an unwarranted, self imposed, guard rail, no?

Also, what do you mean by 'society'?

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

Quote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 04:46:02 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 04:46:02 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

Aye, that is correct.

Quote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 05:19:21 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: Davin on August 18, 2011, 04:46:02 PM

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM[...]why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'?

I don't live that way. Or is this question directed only at those that do live like that? If yes, then you should probably make sure the person you directed the question at also lives like that before including them into said group.

I was asking Evilbeagle. But, since you jumped in: you don't live as though objective good exists, is that right?

Aye, that is correct.

How would you describe 'good'?

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM
So, 'good' in your view only exists in the subjective sense?

I personally would agree to this, good and bad are perceptions that vary from culture to culture, country to country and can be challenged and changed. Take for example this scenario 'A person breaks into a home unaware that the inhabitants are still at home, the burglar is startled and attacks them. In self defense the inhabitants fight back and kill the burglar unintentionally'. This scenario takes a typically bad act and gives it justification to a degree, it still doesn't become a good act but deemed as less bad as the choice (if they really even had any to begin with but that's another discussion) was taken away from those that committed manslaughter.

We generally deem a good action by its positive qualities and bad because its negative qualities, however (whilst not trying to get into a debate about religion) there are acts which are endorsed by religions as a good even though the outcome of that action is a negative, same also applies to tradition and other ideologies.

If you look at western societies own evolution on good and bad, you can see many examples that today would be seen as bad, evil and immoral but considered normal back in the day.

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 02:07:07 PM
why then do we waste our time living as though reality actuallity includes objective 'good'? Such a posture is an unwarranted, self imposed, guard rail, no?

People do this because they perceive it as real therefore it is real to them, there views on what is good and bad will change throughout their life and people generally try to do positive actions over negative as we have empathy and can perceive the negative outcome in comparison to the positive. There is also the possibility that selfishness may be involved i.e. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.".

Quote from: Black36 on August 18, 2011, 05:52:57 PMHow would you describe 'good'?

What is "good" is dependent on the context of what the thing is, I do not currently want to go into every imaginable context. A very general and not rigorous definition is: something which a person likes/enjoys or that which benefits a person. Usages: "The cake tasted good." or "It was good that my brother helped me."

What is your definition of "objective" in the context of the term: "objective good"?

I see "good" as the purpose of God, and "evil" as the violation of the purpose of God. In order to determine what is good or evil in a given situation is to evaluate the situation for what it is and then respond in a way which is parallel to God's purpose (objective evaluation). Subjective evaluations are not as helpful, in my view, because one's response is based on one's desires, which may be ok when picking an ice cream flavor, but not when on jury duty. Does this make sense, or do you need more clarity from me?

Please note, I do not believe that absolute moral judgements are synonomous with objective moral judgements, nor do I believe that absolute moral judgements are scriptural.

slavery discussion split to: http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8112.0

 

Quote from: Tank on July 30, 2011, 07:49:48 AM

Quote from: penfold on July 30, 2011, 01:39:00 AM
In that sense I think the question you've asked is backward. We should look at the behaviour of people within a culture to determine if a culture is 'good' or 'bad' (rather than talking of 'good' or 'bad' cultures as having an effect upon behaviour).

Now this last point is very interesting, I shall definitely cogitated about it.

Before Tank is overcome with cogitation, I would like to add my 2c to the mix.

A culture can be perceived as an aggregated observation of the actions, behaviours and responses of the individuals participating within a group or society. A culture is not a tangible, but more simply conceptual. The reason why culture is so difficult to change is because you cannot address the culture, you must address each and every person participating within the culture. People are habitual and resistant to change. They also feed off each other, so once a majority consensus or understanding is reached, it becomes hard for a smaller group or individual to impact that enough to change the overall aggregate culture of the entire group or society. People also tend to be social creatures with a desire to "fit in" and hence they often adapt to an established culture rather than remaining non conforming and being outcasts.

With this in mind it is much more likely that an individual's behaviour and thoughts are a product of the culture rather than the culture being a product of the individual.

Quote from: Tank on July 31, 2011, 07:24:26 PM

Quote from: Crow on July 31, 2011, 06:15:27 PM
How do we define what is a good cultural influence and what is a bad cultural influence? What causes society to evolve in a positive manner from a negative?

I think by looking at some of the recent natural disasters it has highlighted what cultural influences are better when people are in times of need, for example Japan was criticized for its focus on the society over the individual but when the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear scare hit it showed how positive this cultural influence was with people having a very similar approach to the British "keep calm and carry on". On the opposite Hurricane Katrina showed how a focus on individualism lead to the violence and looting that exacerbated the situation.

I agree the definitions are critical  to progress and outcome of the discussion. Should a behaviour be classified on its combined effects on the person carrying out the behaviour and and the subject of the behaviour?

Yes. As 'Evilbeagle' wrote "If my children are starving to death and I can't find any other way to earn money so I rob you and steal your money. Its good for my family but bad for you." the outcome of this action is a negative on society as a whole. There are alternatives that ensure families do not go hungry so that theft was uncalled for, even if that person was trying to do right by their family they have not looked at the external consequences of the action, that theft may have been the last straw for the person who was on the verge of bankruptcy and has placed the victim into a similar position as the criminal. Therefore it is important that we look at the classification of behavior on the actor and the subject within society.

Is there such a thing as good person and bad person? or even good and bad ideology/culture? We as humans have created our own rules in society and therefore totally subjective to the individual or majority consensus of the societies population. If there is enough public pressure laws get changed and traditions get thrown out; Children's rights are a very good example of this.