Just a few things.
The whole Milgram experement, whilst a hugly important study, has lost a lot of relevence. It was carried out in America, during the cold war, a period when people were a lot more obeying to authority. The fact that it took place in a respected university also supposedly caused people to assume the safty of the students.

Your point about people in groups isn't necicarly bad, annonimity tends to lead people to act in a more selfish way (could be interpereted as evil).

For my money, the best evidence of groups being moraly wrong comes from in groups and outgroups. These are best illustrated by things like football. Its usualy clear who belongs to which group, making clear boundries. People can hate the outher group based on who they support, despite few actual differences. This applies to nationality, gender, race, you name it. The best thing is that these are usualy interlapping groups. You may hate blacks, but when they support your team you love them.

The obvious criticism of this is that it dosen't apply to every one, which raises the question, is the group corrupring people, or is it simply putting a cloak over them, allowing them to express the pre-existing anger below the surface? (Clue: its the latter.)
(Mong goose, Wed 21 May 2008, 11:22, Reply)