The Bystander And Evil In Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect

In The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist known for his construction of the infamous Stanford Prison experiment, defines the role of the bystander and the evil associated with this specific figure. He examines upon this notion in Chapter 13, when he states, “In situations where evil is practiced, there are perpetrators, victims, and survivors. However, there are often observers of the ongoing activities or people who know what is going on and do not intervene to help or to challenge the evil and thereby enable evil to persist by their inaction” (Zimbardo). In accordance to his view, violence consists of three main groups: those who commit the evil, those who are a victim of the evil, and those who are able to survive against such

From this, he concludes that bystanders should be considered another form of evil as their actions only encourage the existence of evil. Resultantly, Zimbardo further examines the bystander effect, and the reasons why so many individuals choose not to confront evil. Once more in Chapter 13, he states, “The more people present who might help in an emergent situation, the more we assume that someone else will step forward, so we do not have to become energized to take any personal risk” (Zimbardo). According to Zimbardo, the role of the bystander is due to the combination of social normality, a lack of personal interest, and individual selfishness. Individuals are not inclined to take the initiative to stop a harmful action because they believe someone else will step in first. Quite frankly, many hope to not interact with evil because they fear of the possible consequences and risk attributed to confront evil. Consequently, individuals are often unintentionally and even unknowingly placed into the role of the

For instance, he explicates on the plausible, yet consequent byproducts of the bystander, by which he states, “The passivity of bystanders allows the continued evolution that ends in intensive collective violence. Passivity by internal bystanders, by members of the population where the violence is occurring, and by external bystanders, outside groups, and nations, encourages penetrators … ” (Staub 185 - 186). He asserts that the conceptual notion of a bystander, someone who does nothing when he or she sees something that may be against their moral principles, only promotes the continuation of evil. He groups bystanders into two categories, more specifically internal and external. Individuals categorized as internal are those affected by the violence, while those in the external group are not affected by such evil. More than often, he argues that external bystanders are of a larger crime as they do nothing to cease acts of violence. Subsequently, Staub uses the historical example of the Rwanda genocide, and the impact the United Stated had as a bystander. For instance, he presents that, “Although passivity is different from action … even passivity in this case