Charlotte's Web Blog

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner? The Controversial Peter Singer

Recently, I had the opportunity to eat, drink and make moral calculations with philosopher Peter Singer. The average person might think hanging out with a philosopher—even a renowned and accomplished one—would be a non-event or cause a pain in the brain, as in the soreness that can develop after a college class of induction, deduction and cerebral gymnastics. But as a lifelong fiancée of philosophy, I was thrilled that Dr. Singer agreed to meet with me.

Singer has the distinction of being the epiphany-trigger in my life. My first experience with him was on paper. In 1985, I read his book, In Defense of Animals, in which he talks about “speciesism,” a prejudice similar to racism and sexism in which humans believe they are superior to other species. Singer argues that nonhumans are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration and that an animal’s ability to feel pain should give him protection under the moral umbrella that humans typically reserve for themselves. This idea was like a starter pistol, signaling me to begin my mission to help the truly voiceless and defenseless members of society. I stopped eating meat that day.

When I heard that the normally reclusive Singer—who lives in Australia and New Jersey and who is called the Father of the Animal Rights movement-- would be speaking at the Getty Museum in Los Angeles about animals and art, I figured why not take him out for a bite? Controversial utilitarians have to eat, too.

Singer is controversial mostly because of his position on infanticide and euthanasia. For example, he holds it is morally proper in some circumstances to kill a severely incapacitated infant whose life would cause immense suffering for himself and his family. Singer comes to this conclusion in the same way he comes to every conclusion: by embarking upon a utilitarian calculation.

A utilitarian deems an action right or wrong based upon the consequences of that action. He tallies the positives (hedons) and negatives (dolors) of the situation in advance and selects the course of action that is likely to result in the most positives or hedons.

Deontological moral theory is, in effect, the opposite of utilitarianism. Deontologists are hedon and dolor haters, and argue that consequences are inconsequential in the moral realm. Deontological theory states that people have certain duties or moral obligations which are based upon some absolute authority; the authority might be religion, universal reason, natural rights, natural law, or some other entity altogether. A deontologist would most likely believe it is wrong to kill an infant, regardless of the child’s level of disability, a precept that might be supported by Scripture.

In order to impress Dr. Singer, I figured I had better be on top of the “utilitarian calculation” game. No slacking. I had to be on my guard every second, ready to shift my actions to the right “utilitarian” course of action. I did not want this great philosopher to construe his time spent with me as in any way immoral.

The first order of business was to choose a restaurant. Singer had only put forth one requirement: there had to be a vegan entrée on the menu. But as a good utilitarian, I knew I had to weigh a parade of other factors. His hotel was in Santa Monica, so I chose a place nearby so as to save fuel and not contribute to global warming. I selected a totally vegan place, as a gesture to encourage exemplary establishments to be fruitful and multiply. I ultimately decided it was ok for the restaurant to be situated in Santa Monica after grappling with whether the area is more or less moral than surrounding communities.

I picked up Singer from his hotel and flipped on the car’s air conditioning because I wanted my important guest to be comfortable. In a polite way, he explained how my action was destroying the environment and suggested we simply lower the windows. I couldn’t believe it; I had already screwed up! I quietly chastised myself for failing to make the necessary moral calculation. 

My second test came when I was confronted with whether I should make a left turn; and in so doing, hold up a long line of vehicles behind me. The alternative was to drive all the way to a signal light, turn onto a less busy street, do a three-point turn into a driveway, go back to the original intersection and make a right turn, an undertaking that would take an extra five minutes. Most people in our “I’m entitled,” me-first society feel morally justified in holding up a long line of other drivers, some who may be rushing to an emergency or who may be late for a critical appointment. But would a utilitarian come to this conclusion? I decided not and opted to inconvenience only my erudite passenger and myself.

The vegan restaurant was like a beehive, bustling with customers and lean on seating. We were directed to an airless corner where we were expected to jam ourselves into a pint-sized table. Part of me wanted to put down my philosophical foot, refuse the cramped conditions and demand a roomy, nearby table. But I heeded to utilitarianism, resolved that a party of four deserved the extra space. As the heat intensified during the meal, I began to regret my decision because it was “dolor city” in that stuffy corner. 

Singer sipped on his mixture of beet, apple and carrot juice as he explained why he was leaning towards supporting Barak Obama for President. We discussed Congress’ proposed immigration legislation and how the issue is dealt with in Australia where his three kids live.

When we exhausted the media’s prized topics, we delved into the hypotheticals that make philosophy a cocktail party favorite; such as “if a trolley is rolling down a hill, should you let it kill your own child or a stranger’s child” and “is there a difference between killing someone and letting him die?” We even explored the always-popular free will debate. I asked Singer if he was choosing to have an enchilada or whether he was merely picking the entrée as a pawn of the universe. He thought he was choosing, but I argued that he was probably just a chess piece in a board game called “life.” 

After spending two hours with Dr. Singer, what struck me most about the man was his humility, flexibility and open-mindedness. He is able to examine an issue with a fresh pad of paper. He lacks the cumbersome, preconceived ideas that stalk most individuals; and he is willing, even eager, to alter his opinion when new data and better arguments come to the fore. I find many people to be the reverse: stubborn, immovable objects, bogged down by pages and pages of notes, unwilling to white them out under any circumstance.

Perhaps this illuminates the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological mind. Utilitarianism by its very nature welcomes, even mandates, ideological pliability while deontological ethics thrives on being a moral tank, oblivious to its environment.

Society reacts to the utilitarian / deontological dance. In The Sacred Canopy, Peter Berger says that people invent ideas, but forget they are the architects of these ideas, later attributing them to an outside, religious source. Non-religious precepts seem to migrate down a similar path. They become rooted social norms like a brazen statue at the center of the town square. They may emanate from a deontological or utilitarian source, but they become more deontological, immutable and transcendent as they stand erect at the center of people’s lives. The statue is virtually impervious to the elements, in part because the average townsperson leans towards resisting change. It is easy and comforting to reinforce the laws, moral rules, and codes of conduct.

Utilitarianism may receive low marks in some circles because it has been manipulated to justify actions. We have all heard excuses like, “I had to cheat on my taxes because I figured the government has enough money” or “I didn’t return the lost wallet because I figured I need the money more than the other person does.” This “figuring” or calculating is a misapplication of the utilitarian method; it does not reflect what an impartial observer would decide. It reflects only the outcome the thief seeks: to avoid taxes or keep the lost wallet.

Despite periodic misuse, utilitarianism has a critical role to play in society. It can chisel away at or altogether overturn deontological values, which philosopher Jeremy Benthem claims are merely camouflage for the popular morality of the day. Utilitarianism allows undiscovered evidence and improved arguments to emerge. It is our best hope for a improved future, and we should recognize it as such. 

I thank Dr. Singer for being a living example of the flexibility of utilitarianism. And from now on, when someone asks me to guess who’s coming to dinner, I will hope it’s a utilitarian. Especially a controversial one.

My Adventure Presenting Animal Rights Philosophy to the FBI

On April 13, 2006, I received a strange phone call at my Los Angeles home from an FBI Special Agent Instructor. I’ll call him Andy.

It was strange because the FBI had never before contacted me. Did I breach some obscure statute? I remembered a book of “absurd laws,” which said that in my neighborhood it was illegal to spit on the sidewalk, drive in a housecoat or allow animals to mate publicly within 1,500 feet of a school or church. Had my little, white terrier been committing impure acts at Erwin Elementary?

It turned out Special Agent Andy wanted me to fly to Quantico, Virginia (near Washington D.C.) to lecture law enforcement executives and managers from around the world about animal philosophy, keeping in mind “the mindset and methodologies of terrorists and the government’s response.”

It was an unusual request—even for an animal rights advocate, such as myself, with a doctorate in philosophy--so I did what anyone would do: I contacted my family, friends and criminal attorney.

I don’t really have a criminal attorney, but I have a friend who regularly handles high-profile cases. He furrowed his bushy brow and cautioned, “Don’t do anything. Let me check this out first. The FBI railroad innocent people all the time.”

My anxiety multiplied when an animal person said, “only traitors talk to the government” and a non-animal friend advised me to take a lawyer with me and to refuse to “name names” when “testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee.”

“I don’t have any names,” I protested, but then remembered a particularly annoying local journalist who had infuriated much of the Los Angeles community. Nah, I thought, it would be inappropriate to use the FBI for the purpose of revenge.

A Los Angeles Police Department friend offered the only encouragement, “It is an honor to be invited. Don’t worry. I’ll tell them you’re not a subversive and not to arrest you until after our tennis match next week.” She laughed.

I felt the real purpose behind the FBI’s invitation had to do with their misguided aim to infiltrate the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which cannot be infiltrated because it is an ideology rather than an organization. There are no meetings, mailing lists or membership cards. Anybody can claim to be a member of the ALF when rescuing animals, destroying “tools of torture” (such as research equipment) or financially depleting a corporation that abuses animals; as long as he or she does not injure a human or nonhuman in the process.

The FBI has designated the ALF as America’s number one domestic terrorist threat, in spite of the fact that those acting on its behalf have never physically harmed anyone. The same cannot be said of unions, who have reportedly instigated 2,193 acts of violence in the last ten years—including near fatal injuries--and anti-abortion activists who have made 13,256 attacks in the past three decades against doctors and clinics, including murders, kidnappings and bombings. By comparison, ALF-attributed actions are quite rare. 

In 2003, hate crimes totaled approximately 7,400 and recognized violations of environmental laws by corporations hit 450. Senator Barak Obama says he is baffled as to why the ALF is the foremost target, since the FBI itself has stated that ALF-attributed crimes are on the decline.

In Congressional Quarterly, Justin Rood argues that the US government is silencing free speech from the political left while ignoring those on the radical right, and the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that the government is attempting to quell controversial ideas by targeting mainstream animal and environmental groups, peace activists and others who participate in lawful protest when in fact they “should be investigating real terrorists.”

As an animal advocate for the past 25 years, I have only heard of two illegal animal-related actions, and both were committed by carnivores indifferent to the animal movement. One contemplated attributing his lawless act to the ALF, and the other might have done so under the right circumstances.

The first “villain” was an elderly attorney, who broke into his own home to rescue his two, pet pigeons after it had had been padlocked by health department officials. The man had been told that he would be thrown into jail without the possibility of bail if he were to set foot on the property. His equally villainous university professor friend manned the getaway car. Neither were vegetarians. Neither was young or agile. And prior to this, neither had committed what the FBI might call a “terrorist act.” They cut off the oversized padlock and rescued two, healthy pigeons on an autumn night in 2005. They have escaped arrest to this day, but are not on the run.

The second “terrorist” was, in fact, a remorseful vivisectionist who would sneak animals off the premises before slaughter and place them in loving homes. If his superior had questioned the disappearance of  “specimens,” the researcher, in order to retain his job, could have simply pointed his finger at the ALF.   

Decision day arrived, and my criminal attorney gave me the flickering yellow light, warning me that my visit to the Academy would prompt the FBI to open a file on me.

“Well, I plan to open a file on them, too,” I assured him. “But, I promise not to put any falsehoods in my file if they don’t put any falsehoods in theirs.”

“Go if you want. It’s legit, but take my number in case.”   

My plan was to serve as an ambassador for the animal rights movement and to convey through my lecture the truth about how animals suffer under human oppression, as well as to present philosophical arguments as to why animals are of equal value to humans and worthy of equal consideration. I wanted my audience to understand that anti-terrorism resources should be used to combat dangerous groups who fly planes into buildings, rather than renegade gerbil lovers. It would not be realistic to suggest that animal-related “crimes” be ignored, but I argued they be deprioritized in an age when chemical, biological and nuclear warfare are possible.

An ominous feeling tented the empty road and thick woods in Quantico, and the sound of guns slammed through the air. I met Special Agent Andy, a fine host for the FBI, at the first security checkpoint, and he immediately drove me past a sign, which read, “Danger. Field Firing in Process.” Was this disclaimer the result of an accident? Perhaps a speaker had been shot in her compact rental car. I scanned for stray bullets.

Andy took me on a brief tour of the grounds, pointing out a pretend town called Hogan’s Alley with fake storefronts, including a bank in which actors are hired at $12.00 per hour to play “robber,” “hostage” or “drug dealer” with FBI trainees.

I laughed, “Do the actors ever win?” Andy gave me a stern look, “We take that very seriously. It is not good to get shot even in playtime.”

Andy had a penchant—as did all the agents I met—for comparing their work with crime shows and movies. At one point he mentioned, “We (the FBI) are more like Barney Miller than James Bond. More paperwork than adventure.” In many ways, the afternoon was a crash course in TV trivia.

The presentation room was a small lecture hall with a podium, microphone and display screen for the speaker, and fixed seats on ascending levels for attendees. I was told that two FBI psychologists would sit in on my lecture. Although the psychologists were charming, I felt their aim was to scrutinize me, to learn how to squash the animal rights movement. I felt the others were there to learn. 

My presentation began with undercover video footage inside a vivisection lab. It showed a man in a white coat pounding on a Beagle puppy and forcing tubes down several dogs’ throats; the animals were clearly in distress. I surmised cleaning liquids or pesticides would be poured down the tubes since they were routinely tested at this lab. In another clip, monkeys screamed while their penises were electrocuted by scientists.

Andy shouted from the back of the room, “The FBI will prosecute this sort of cruelty if videos like this are brought to our attention.”

I pointed out that obtaining undercover video is illegal in itself, even more so with the advent of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which states that a person can be prosecuted if he or she causes over $10,000 worth of economic damage to a corporation that uses animals. Showing undercover video could cause investors to sell their stocks, decimating profits. Those who unveil the video could face time in prison and fines.

In addition, I told the crowd that it was unlikely the barbarous treatment of dogs and monkeys in the footage was against the law. And even if it was, prosecution tends to result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Because animals are property, and the law generally finds it acceptable to use and kill animals for human gain, imposing prison terms and steep fines on large corporations—who have even larger lawyers--is rare.

During my lecture, I was able to get several law enforcement executives to admit openly that they would break the law, if necessary, to rescue an animal in distress, although they did not specifically agree to break into a research lab or factory farm. This was quite an accomplishment because prior to the presentation, Andy had privately told me that any FBI agent who did not or could not (for ethical reasons) uphold all US laws would be fired. My audience was mostly non-FBI so they surely kept their jobs.

Andy was keen on discussing “solutions” for bridging the gap between “them and us,” although he hinted that the Bureau’s favored tactic was to develop a network of spies within the animal movement who would report illegal actions. I told Andy this strategy was sure to fail because I had been a loyal animal rights person for 25 years, and had only heard about two so-called criminals: the aforementioned renegade researcher and pigeon man, neither connected to the movement.

I was pleased with Andy’s desire to better the relationship between law enforcement and animal rights activists and offered the following suggestions. First, I said that law enforcement could advise the President and Congress to support legislation that improves the situation for nonhumans and to enforce existing anti-cruelty laws. The FBI could also place “weeding out animal cruelty” higher on its “to do” list.

Secondly, I suggested that the FBI work on bettering its image and investigate real terrorists rather than plunging into what is perceived as a modern-day Inquisition. It was both curious and alarming that every person who found out about my speaking engagement “freaked out.” This mistrust no doubt largely stemmed from the problematic history of the FBI; which is detailed in Richard Gid Powers’ book, Broken: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of the FBI. Powers argues that the Bureau hones in on any issue that “represent(s) the fears and hatred of the masses or classes,” rather than investigating those crimes that most offend the law or pose the gravest danger, an allegation that coincides with what animal and environmental supporters call today’s “Green Scare.”

Beginning with the FBI’s inception in the early 1900’s, Powers’ book moves through the FBI’s “witch hunts” against “whomever might be the public enemy of the day.” There was the “White Slavery Scare,” which was embarked upon due to a racist fear by Whites about the increasing power of Blacks, the “Adultery Scare,” and the notorious “Red Scare,” among others.    

Today, a substantial number of people feel the Patriot Act is used for political reasons, and the ACLU charges that the FBI is spying on and examining the records of thousands of law-abiding US citizens. Andy says these allegations are untrue and that the Bureau supports free speech and lawful protest. He adds that simply tapping a phone takes excessive manpower; therefore, would only be reserved for someone who is a substantial threat.

My third suggestion was that law enforcement officers make good “situation ethics” decisions. Even though Andy insisted laws are not malleable, I know there is always the exercise of discretion and could tell lecture attendees agreed by their nodding heads. I pointed out situations in which police officers have leeway to make decisions that directly affect the life or safety of animals.

For example, during the Katrina disaster, some officers allowed people to evacuate with their animals; others did not. At a burning apartment building in Tennessee in 2003, police and firefighters refused to allow a man to rescue his trapped dog who was clawing at the glass of a sliding door. The man eventually ignored law enforcement’s orders and rescued his dog. He was handcuffed and charged with misdemeanors, outraging the public and arguably tarnishing the reputation of local law enforcement. If the man’s two-year-old daughter had been clawing at the glass, would law enforcement have told him to “stand back and let the child die?”

As a finale to my lecture, I questioned why the only difference between a criminal and a terrorist--according to the US Code of Federal Regulations as listed on the FBI website--relates to the latter’s desire to further “political or social objectives.” The word “terrorist” evokes the image of an evil person while the word “criminal” has a less pejorative connotation, even when the offenses are the same.

One can only assume that “furthering political or social objectives” frightens those in power, who crave to maintain the status quo. Perhaps those who control society—such as corporations, government entities and media conglomerates--fear the ideology of an animal liberationist could catch hold and topple them from their golden thrones, reducing their animal product profits and a overturning a lifestyle which requires nonhumans be seen as means to a human end. Is this the true reason behind branding the ALF as “terrorists?”

After the lecture, Andy asked me, “Could you come back and speak again?”

“I doubt it. Unfortunately, I don’t fare well on long plane rides.”

He added, “Well, maybe you could give me the name of someone who could.”

I grinned and replied, “I knew you’d ask me to name names. I have no choice but to report this in my secret file.”

Arm Wrestling with Darwin

  Unless your head has been super-glued inside a science book, you have observed the furious debate between proponents of intelligent design (ID) and supporters of evolution; a debate that has bounced from courtrooms into opinion pages around the country. Pointing to the complexity of life on earth, IDers posit the existence of an intelligent designer and reject the notion that all can be explained by evolutionary theory. 

The issue has become a political tractor with conservatives and liberals attempting to bulldoze their opponents. Conservatives hope to acquire the seal of authenticity for their theory of ID, an accolade that only “fact-based” and “respectable” science can provide; while the liberals want to protect their turf from what they see as a religious crusade into the “objective” halls of learning.

The controversy has emerged in Georgia, Kansas, Arkansas, Maryland, Missouri and South Carolina, as well as Pennsylvania where a judge recently ruled that reading a single sentence about intelligent design in biology class would violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. In California, the El Tejon Unified School District permanently cancelled a philosophy class about intelligent design after Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit. 

Religion was once the supreme authority on all matters, but when the Enlightenment’s onslaught of secular ideas swept over the European continent, it carried away the minds—and sometimes the hearts—of many who had been devout.

Seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza rebelled against traditional Judaism and Christianity, replacing them to a great extent with the rational and scientifically based metaphysic of determinism. This metaphysic argues in favor of a mechanistic, causal universe and is bolstered by scientific findings, including later Darwinian theory. 

In keeping with the prior rebellion against religion, today there is arguably a rebellion against the new leader called “science.” Kings risk being toppled from their thrones, and ID has emerged as a weapon to be used against this final arbiter of “truth.” 

Why are IDers making their move now? First, it could be said that science has ventured into “disquieting” areas of study, such as cloning, transgenetic engineering, cross-species transplants and stem cell research. There may be an urge to rein it in with philosophical or theological “wisdom.” As Albert Einstein, a pantheist and disciple of Spinoza, said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” 

Teaching is never value-free, and an omission can convey a powerful message. When students fail to discuss the ethics of scientific actions and outcomes, they often end up like my former, high school classmates: giggling and hurling dissection specimens across the room, a behavior that conveys lack of respect for the animals who died and inability to comprehend that dissection is considered by many to be ethically impermissible in the first place.

Secondly, science has faltered recently, leaving it vulnerable to attack by those who hope to depose it. Scientific fraud has leapfrogged to the public’s attention with confessions by Korean researcher Dr. Hwang Woo Suk, who admitted fabricating cloning studies for the past two years. Esteemed scientific journals published his concocted data, and his peers did not question his work. One journal editor recently stated that scientific error and dupery occur from time to time, even at leading American universities, a statement that taints the image of science as trusted authority. 

Thirdly, IDers may feel that any disagreement among prominent scientists opens the hatch to alternative theories. The discovery of “spooky” quantum mechanics occurred in conjunction with a pervasive disillusionment with science and its fundamental tenet: causality. While some quantum physicists, such as Einstein, support a deterministic hidden variable theory, others, such as Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, defend a framework based on the uncertainty principle. If it is acceptable to teach opposing theories in quantum mechanics, then why not let ID arm wrestle with Darwin? 

Because words such as “spookiness,” “magic” and “trickery” are associated with the quantum world, one could argue that mystical, veiled or opaque theories, such as ID, befit the scientific realm. If quantum strangeness can be taught, why must intelligent design be expelled?

Lastly, postmodernism--which rejects any form of absolute truth, even in science--has permeated modern society, and conservative IDers are embracing it. This is ironic because the “right” has traditionally embraced the objective and absolute while the “left” has endorsed the subjective and contextual.

In describing postmodernism, Richard Rorty says, “truth is made rather than found,” and Jean-Francois Lyotard emphasizes the importance of avoiding totalizing grand narratives and maintaining an infinite number of perspectives. Darwinian theory is nothing if not a totalizing grand narrative.

Should ID be allowed to “act up” in science class? Most people might say yes. According to a 2005 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll on evolution, 84 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form or helped guide their development, while a mere 12 percent say God had no part in the process.

The bouncers in the “12 percent club” guard the door from party crashers. They look at “fake” ID, saying it is creationism incognito and that it lacks “real science” credentials. They announce to the crowd, “If you think it qualifies, you’ve had one too many drinks.”

They are correct in that intelligent design fails Karl Popper’s falsifiability test; it cannot be proved wrong. ID is philosophy, not science. But does this mean it should be denied entry?

I am convinced by the evidence of natural selection and treasure Darwin’s theory because it promotes an interconnectedness of all living things, but I hold that the intense battle to keep ID out of the classroom is misguided. The shrill, political feud between conservatives and liberals has spiraled away from protecting students and the Constitution into a rendition of Hannity and Colmes.

Do we lack confidence in our children to evaluate, to separate evidence from fiction, to interpret for themselves? Sweeping ID under the rug makes for a huge lump that curious teenagers will investigate.

What is the resistance to cross-disciplinary study or “big picture” teaching in which related fields, such as history, philosophy and biology, are integrated? Math partners with chemistry; philosophy and ethics could collaborate with all branches of science. Compartmentalized study may lead to a lack of synthesis, thus an absence of learning in general.

Why is postmodernism a no-no in science, but a welcome visitor in other disciplines? No area of study should lose the doubt and humility that a postmodern filter provides. Theories from the past have been toppled, and some that are accepted today will be mocked tomorrow.

Fighting may be inappropriate in school, but arm wrestling, well, isn’t that a fundamental freedom? Now let’s roll up our sleeves and let the theorizing begin.

No Kill Animal Shelter Proposal for Oakland, California and California Animal Commission

I spent the past year researching the animal shelter situation throughout the U.S. I have interviewed over 100 individuals from government, the humane community, rescue groups and animal services departments. I have learned that “no kill” is an achievable goal.

Four months ago, I completed a proposal for the city of Los Angeles and a few weeks ago I completed a proposal for Oakland. I also recently asked Governor Schwarzenegger to establish a California Animal Commission which would assist cities and counties in achieving the “no kill” goal. I have not received a final word from the Governor’s office, but am hopeful. The Commission would provide suggestions and proposals to localities who want assistance.

I put many hours into my 54 page "no kill" report for Oakland. Most of these ideas have been successful elsewhere.  The central elements of the proposal can be found at www.CharlotteLaws.org  or click here for the exact page on the new Animal Commission Website.

Please urge Oakland to move towards "no kill" and ask Governor Schwarzenegger to establish a Commission. If you live outside of California, please take these ideas and initiate an effort in your state! Thanks.

Conformity, Authority and Morality

There are financial scandals implicating and even indicting executives from Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing, Arthur Anderson, Tyco and Merck. There are statistics showing that 10% of American households steal cable television, that 70% - 75% of students have cheated in school, and that lying is a normal part of social interaction.

There are the prisoner abuse scandals that point to sadistic behavior by seven American military personnel at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, with follow-up accusations against European troops, and later against the California National Guard at a separate incarceration facility north of Baghdad.

Are these "questionable" acts indicative of the genetic or moral flaws of "a few bad apples," or is there a particular social climate or situation that paves the way for certain types of behavior? Is Shakespeare right in that "all the world is a stage," and this stage can transform a law-abiding citizen into a crook, an ethical person into a dissembler, or a pacifist into a sadist?

Numerous experiments have investigated this question and found that a person's behavior is often drastically altered by those around him and by his overall circumstance, rather than by inherent personality traits or professed individual values.

At the Princeton Theological Seminary, two psychologists conducted a study in which seminary students were asked to relate the parable of the Good Samaritan into a tape recorder at a nearby building. A "victim," feigning physical distress and needing help, was positioned en route. The instructor warned half of the students that they were late to make the recording and should hurry to the proper location, while telling the other half that there was no need to rush, but they might as well head over to the building early. Of those in a hurry, 90% walked around the injured "victim" or stepped over him to get to the destination. Of those with time to spare, 63% assisted the man in need. The context of the situation proved essential: the desire to obey orders and to conform to the perceived time limitation played a significant role in the seminarians decision as to whether to be a Good Samaritan.

Social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted his own experiments in 1951. He wanted to see if an ordinary person would conform with a group decision when it was clear that this decision was erroneous. An unsuspecting subject was placed in a classroom with seven actors who agreed one after the other that two lines were equal in length when there was in fact a huge discrepancy: one line was short and the other was long. Then the subject was asked for his opinion; only 29% of those questioned deviated from the majority, thus establishing the power of conformity and authority. Those who answered correctly reported feeling uncomfortable when doing so. If the decision-making had been related to ethics or aesthetics, rather than the empirically verifiable length of two lines, experts agree that compliance with the group decision would have been even higher.

Asch's work was inspired by Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist who wondered if people would execute strangers if they were simply told to do so. Milgram was fascinated with the Nuremberg trials and wondered if Eichmann, a high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was inherently evil or had just followed orders in such a way as any person would.

Milgram invited ordinary Americans whom he labeled "teachers" to give electric shocks to a stranger whom he called the "learner" when the latter was unable to provide the correct response in a supposed memory test. Of course, there were no real shocks and memory was not being tested, but each teacher was unaware of this. The learner screamed with pain and continually begged for the teacher to release him from his straps. The testing device was labeled from level 0 to 450. 100-150 delivered mild shock while higher levels were labeled "very strong," "extreme severity," danger, severe shock," and finally "XXX" (or fatal). Milgram had asked accredited colleagues in advance to guess what they thought the outcome would be; they hypothesized that no one would go above 150 volts with the exception of the rare sadist who would push the lethal 450 lever.

The actual results were quite different: 66% of the teachers "executed" the victim, merely because they were told to do so by the authoritative figure: the psychologist. Of those who refused to go to 450, no one stopped before reaching 300 volts; and nobody helped the victim, thus proving to Milgram that part of the human condition is blind obedience.

For 25 years, Milgram's obedience experiment was replicated by numerous researchers in the United States, Australia, South Africa and in several European countries with similar results. In a German study, over 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the learner.

"Abuse" also resulted from a study conducted at Stanford University by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. He created a mock prison, and average university students were drafted to be prisoners and guards. They passed mental and physical exams, and coins were tossed to see who was to assume which role. The authoritative impact of the guard uniform with the accompanying nightstick and mirrored sunglasses converted these previously docile students into increasingly violent enforcers, and the inferior status of the convicts, reinforced by their low ranking garb, prison numbers (rather than names) and confinement to tiny cells, transformed them into victims. Formerly active prisoners became passive; healthy ones became sick.

Both sets of students said they lost their identities and forgot they were a part of an experiment. The illusion became a reality. The two week study was called off after only six days because the treatment of the prisoners became too brutal and humiliating. The photos revealing the Abu Ghraib violations are astoundingly similar to the video footage taken of the Zimbardo experiment.

There are studies that show how lying, cheating and stealing are also the product of circumstance rather than character and how the notion of "us" vs. "them" is a fallacy. Two Yale University psychologists Hugh Hartshorne and Mark May secretly gave approximately 10,000 children the opportunity to lie, cheat, or steal on various academic tests, sporting competitions and other projects. The children's personal values were evaluated during this extensive study, 71% of the kids exhibited "unethical" behavior, and it was concluded that "honest or dishonest behavior is largely determined by circumstances," not moral beliefs.

In another incident, computers in a Manhattan credit union failed and mistakenly permitted customers to withdraw unlimited funds over their available balances. Rather than inconvenience its customers, the union decided to trust their patrons not to overdraw their accounts with their ATM cards.

Four thousand customers took advantage of the error; some stole as much as $10,000 from the financial institution. In the end, $15 million remained missing, and the authorities had to be called to make arrests.

There are countless other studies about how external factors are highly predictive of so-called "moral" behavior. It may be disheartening to learn that people are generally conformists, blind followers of authority and highly influenced by circumstance rather than character and values, but there are reasons to be uplifted by these findings. 

First, this behavior can be explained: people are genetically predisposed towards conformity and ethnocentrism because these traits aid in survival. We cannot live without the assistance of others, and this type of societal cooperation requires some adherence to established rules. Cultural group selection is certainly essential in the same way that natural selection is.

Secondly, political leaders, reformers, revolutionaries, creative thinkers, innovators, public policy developers and anyone with a different slant or position on an issue should rejoice. This paradigm shift means implementing change is much more promising: situations are fluid and malleable while internalized moral beliefs are often rigid. 

The recent debate over gay civil unions is a case in point. When Massachusetts and San Francisco began challenging the status quo, polls revealed that most Americans were against the legally recognized pairing of homosexual couples. However, in the course of the past year, statistics have radically changed. It may be the pervasive news coverage, the compelling arguments in favor, the open national debate, or all of the above, but external factors have clearly contributed to a shift in perspective. In a CBS nationwide poll conducted in May 2004, the percentage of people who favored civil unions was up to 56% from 39% in November 2003, and those opposed was down to 40% from 53%.

The ability to change a situation, a political climate, a law, or a collective conscious is indeed possible without heavy-duty pliers or a hammer. Reform is not at war with genetic, entrenched, or internalized stagnations. To a great extent, the only real obstacles are more flexible, external factors, such as whether there are cameras in the prison to monitor prisoner abuse, whether teachers are vigilant about plagiarism and cheating, whether corporate America prosecutes its white-collar criminals, and whether a credit union shuts down its ATM rather than naively trusting its patrons. Perhaps "The Bad Seed" of circumstance is not so bad after all.