Name: 為什麼好人會做壞事 (Why Good People Do Terrible Things)
Uploaded: 2025-10-08T18:15:46.000Z
Duration: 6 min 22 s

第二類條件句型

If you had the chance to harm someone and get away with it, would you?

如果你有機會傷害別人卻能全身而退，你會嗎？

基礎被動語態

History is full of chilling examples that make us question whether people are born evil or made evil.

歷史上有許多令人不寒而慄的例子，讓我們質疑人是天生邪惡還是後天被塑造成邪惡的。

We'd like to believe we're good people, but

the truth is we can justify far more than we realize, even when others see our actions as cruel.

事實是，我們能為比我們意識到的更多的行為找藉口，即使別人認為我們的行為很殘酷。

So the real question is, is evil something we're born with or something that our environment shapes in us?

所以真正的問題是，邪惡是我們天生就有的，還是我們的環境在我們身上形塑出來的？

Let's find out, starting with one of psychology's most famous and disturbing experiments, the Stanford Prison Experiment.

讓我們一起來找出答案，從心理學中最著名也最令人不安的研究之一開始：Stanford Prison Experiment。

In the pursuit of greater insight into the effects of authoritarianism on morals.

為了更深入地瞭解威權主義對道德的影響。

One of the most sickening studies that researchers conducted was the Stanford Prison experiment in the 1970s.

研究人員在 1970 年代進行了 Stanford Prison experiment，這是最令人作嘔的研究之一。

Controversial psychologist Philip Zimbardo, working with Stanford University, split a group of volunteers into two prisoners and guards.

備受爭議的心理學家 Philip Zimbardo 與 Stanford University 合作，將一群志願者抽成了囚犯和看守兩組。

The guards were dressed in uniforms that took away their individuality and therefore their culpability as individuals going forward.

看守們穿上了制服，這剝奪了他們的個人特質，也是以剝奪了他們作為個人未來應負的罪責。

Their actions weren't reflective of their own morals, but the morals of the group.

他們的行為並非反映個人道德，而是群體道德。

The prisoners, on the other hand, were given prison uniforms and addressed by the guards as numbers instead of names.

另一方面，囚犯們穿上了囚服，看守們稱呼他們為號碼而非名字。

This already created a dangerous divide between prisoners and guards.

這已經在囚犯和看守之間製造了危險的隔閡。

One group is freed from responsibility and the other is dehumanized.

一方擺脫了責任，另一方則被非人化。

Guards took every opportunity to make things worse for the prisoners, disrupting their sleep and referring to them as dangerous inmates, despite them just being ordinary people who volunteered as part of an experiment.

看守們抓住一切機會讓囚犯們的日子更難過，幹擾他們的睡眠，並稱他們為危險的囚犯，儘管他們只是參與實驗的普通志願者。

As tensions rose, the prisoners beds were taken from them.

隨著緊張氣氛升高，囚犯們的床鋪被沒收了。

They grew increasingly distressed and suspicious of one another.

他們彼此之間的痛苦和猜疑感越來越深。

They were forced to wear bags over their heads.

They were forced to do push ups whenever the guards told them to, and

只要看守們命令，他們就被迫做伏地挺身，

were subjected to all kinds of humiliation.

The experiment ended after only six days instead of the planned two weeks due to ethical concerns and things growing rapidly out of hand.

由於道德疑慮和情況迅速失控，實驗僅在六天後就結束了，而非原定的兩週。

This experiment is widely debated on its validity, both scientifically and ethically.

這項實驗在科學和道德上的有效性都備受爭議。

但我們可以從中學到一些東西。

What is the likelihood that every guard was born with that cruelty in them?

每個看守天生就帶有那種殘酷的可能性有多大？

Instead, it was more likely that opportunity and amenity and perceived duty and a power imbalance all contributed to their behavior.

相反，更有可能是機會、便利、被認知的職責以及權力不平衡都促成了他們的行為。

There was a 5050 chance that by signing up, you would be a prisoner or a guard.

簽約報名，有五成機率你會是囚犯或看守。

No one had actually committed a crime, but

the role you are given, the identity others prescribe to you, can make you act evil.

你被賦予的角色、他人為你指定的身份，可能會讓你做出邪惡的行為。

If the results of this experiment are to be believed, circumstances definitely play a role in your moral behavior.

如果這項實驗的結果可信，那麼環境因素絕對會在你的道德行為中扮演角色。

If someone can be born evil, surely we would see them performing evil deeds from a young age.

如果一個人天生邪惡，我們一定會看到他們從小就做出邪惡的行為。

Children have murdered before cruelty in children is a well documented phenomenon.

兒童殺人事件，兒童的殘酷行為是一個有據可查的現象。

The world's youngest serial killer was an eight year old boy, Amarjeet Sada, from India.

世界上最年輕的連續殺人犯是來自印度的八歲男孩 Amarjeet Sada。

Too young to be prosecuted, but his crimes were shockingly sophisticated.

他太年輕了，無法被起訴，但他的罪行卻令人震驚地老練。

He took the time to lure his victims and hide the bodies.

他花時間引誘受害者並隱藏屍體。

This suggests that he knew that he was doing something wrong.

In a study examining the biological perspective of the minds of serial killers, researchers suggest that he could have been biologically wired to be more violent.

在一項研究連續殺人犯心理的生物學觀點的調查中，研究人員認為他可能在生物學上就天生具有暴力傾向。

The researchers specifically suggested that he could have an extra Y chromosome, which is a condition that affects behavior and increases the likelihood of the individual committing violent crimes.

研究人員特別指出，他可能多了一條 Y 染色體，這是一種影響行為並增加個人犯下暴力罪行機率的狀況。

Although this evidence is speculative, it does show that people can biologically be predisposed to evil.

雖然這些證據是推測性的，但確實顯示了人們在生物學上可能天生就傾向於邪惡。

But if you spend any time looking into serial killers, you'll likely know that the psychological factors that influence their crimes are often brought out by their upbringing or environment.

但如果你花時間研究連續殺人犯，你可能會知道，影響他們罪行的心理因素，往往是由他們的成長過程或環境所激發的。

So without all of the information on Amarjeet Sadha, we can't know his environment influenced him.

所以，在沒有 Amarjeet Sadha 的所有資訊的情況下，我們無法確定他的成長環境是否影響了他。

After getting walked over, your heartbroken or suffering great betrayal, you probably felt like you might snap.

在被欺負、心碎或遭受巨大背叛後，你可能覺得自己快要崩潰了。

But the truth is, as bad as you felt, those things didn't make you turn evil.

但事實是，不管你感覺有多糟，這些事都沒有讓你變得邪惡。

Despite abuse being a factor in many serial killers childhoods, not all abuse victims go down that path.

儘管虐待是許多連續殺人犯童年時期的因素之一，但並非所有受虐者都會走上那條路。

If it were so easy to make someone evil, a lot more people would be.

如果要讓人變邪惡這麼容易，那會有更多人這樣做了。

But our environments definitely do influence us.

但我們的成長環境確實會影響我們。

Our biological makeup also influences us.

我們的生理組成也會影響我們。

Amarjeet Sadhguru why don't more abuse victims become evil?

Amarjeet Sadhguru，為什麼不是更多受虐者變得邪惡？

Because the way we behave is also up to us.

因為我們的行為表現，也是由我們自己決定的。

We can be genetically predisposed to aggression.

我們可能天生就容易有攻擊性。

We can be taught by our parents that violence is valid.

我們可能被父母教導暴力是合理的。

But while some people truly don't have any alternatives, most of us do.

但雖然有些人真的沒有其他選擇，但我們大多數人都有。

Athens writes that the question of nature versus nurture is meaningless because the relationship between these two factors as it plays out for the individual is too complex to put a definitive claim on.

Athens 寫道，天性還是後天養成的這個問題毫無意義，因為這兩個因素對個人產生的複雜關聯，太難下定論了。

So to answer the question, people are born evil, people are also made evil, but

所以要回答這個問題，人天生就邪惡，人也會被塑造成邪惡，但

evil people ultimately decide to do evil things.

邪惡的人最終決定做邪惡的事。

It can be tempting to dismiss people like Amarjeet Sadha as an 8 year old who didn't know he was doing something wrong.

不過，有時候我們很容易覺得像 Amarjeet Sadha 這樣的人，只是個 8 歲小孩，不知道自己在做錯事。

But if that were true, there would be a lot more cases like this.

但如果真是這樣，那就會有很多類似的案例了。

So why do you think people are or become evil?

所以你認為，人天生就邪惡，還是會被塑造成邪惡呢？

What do you think is the biggest influence on morality?

你覺得對道德影響最大的因素是什麼？

Let us know your theories in the comments below.

在下面的留言區告訴我們你的想法吧！

If you enjoyed this video, let us know by leaving a like and subscribe to Psych 2.

如果你喜歡這支影片，請給我們一個讚，並訂閱 Psych 2。