Philip Zimbardo, an american university psychologist, has been interviewed on BBC News 24. I've never heard of the guy before, but apparently his research shows that 'good' people become 'bad' people in certain circumstances. Now his work has been controversial - a 1971 experiment with students being given roles as guards and prisoners had to be closed down early when it became apparent that mental and physical abuse was getting out of hand.

Why are we so suprised at this? The most glaring example of this situation was finally shut down after six million victims were gassed in nazi-occupied europe. There have been others in recent times too. The Killing Fields of Cambodia, the Ethnic Cleansing of the Balkans, violence in Rwanda etc.

Zimbardo is criticised on the grounds that he does not make allowances for individual personality, that perhaps some people are more likely to go bad than others. But Zimbardo says no. He says we all have the propensity to commit 'evil' and that side of our nature is encouraged by our situation. The arguement is that human social behaviour dictates that the majority will simply comply and obey orders, committing terrible inhumane acts because the situation that person is in no longer provides any restraint on such behaviour.

My own view is that both sides of the argument are correct. We can all do terrible things whatever our sensibilities or inclinations. We all rationalise those actions if we commit them, to make the consequences more acceptable to our self esteem. The perverse side of our nature might find pleasure in these acts, as it makes us feel powerful. And yes, some individuals are predisposed to 'evil' behaviour because their psychological state sees personal gain or reward in behaving badly much sooner. These people are often the ones who command the others, who then obey because to do otherwise is to rebel against the regime that supports them. Why else do people look the other way, or simply join in? After all, if we choose to reject the group behaviour of our peers we risk social exclusion (or worse) - and for humans, thats usually a higher price to pay than the suppressed guilt of something they might later regret.

Then again, guilt isn't always apparent. Having done these things a person might believe they were right to do them. For many years now I've described humanity as a nasty animal. Our bad behaviour is reflected in nature, where we see packs of chimpanzees (our closest genetic relative) engaged in random violence and organised raiding. It isn't generally realised just how dangerous older chimpanzees can be - they have a deserved reputation for unpredictable behaviour.

But surely humans are better than that? Surely we are intelligent enough and sufficiently spiritually aware to choose a more humane path? It must be said the evidence says otherwise. Humans are social animals and those instincts dictate our behaviour far more than we know or care. It isn't just the tv news either, it isn't just Guantanamo Bay, or Russian prisons. I witnessed (and suffered) such behaviour in a warehouse as groups of young men began seeking status by bullying and agressive behaviour, not to mention some very disagreeable vandalism.

Nonetheless, sometimes, just sometimes, a human being decides to rebel, to say no. Is that noble? Perhaps, but that would depend on our perspective. The solitary former SS guard who'd refused to take part in genocide was lucky to be transferred and like anyone else, I would praise him for the courage of his humanitarian convictions. A US soldier refused to go to Iraq and was pilloried. I applaud that man for standing up for what he believed in, but I do condemn him for breaking his oath of service to his country. I once made a stand against bullying and ten years on, I am still condemned for it.

I remember a film clip on tv news of a US soldier entering a building after action against iraqi gunmen. His teammate saw some movement and asked "Is that guy dead?". The soldier shot him saying "He is now...". He too was pilloried in the media. His actions were viewed as inhumane. What else could he do? He was a trained soldier, a man employed to commit violence for his country regardless of personal risk, if required. The fallen gunman was a potential threat, a man who may still have a grenade, firearm, or sharp blade with which to cause death and injury, a man too groggy to think clearly and attempt surrender even if he wanted to. In that light, was the soldier wrong?

Pop Star Moment of the Week

No not me - my rock star days are over (no laughing at the back...). Seriously though, I've happened on a newspaper story mentioning that pop superstar Robbie Williams has spotted a UFO, and now wants to be Ufologist. Stay off the pills Robbie.