more-or-less sympathy for everyone.

check out point B

I'm reminded of the case of "perpetual abuse". Many people who psychologically and physically abuse others on an interpersonal level, claim that they themselves were abused before. Apologetics exist for such actions, claiming that people are "conditioned" to know abuse as the way normal people can behave.

However, it remains the case that many who are abused, in fact most; don't turn to abuse others. So context, although a factor, isn't the only one. I too am a Zimbardoian, and recognize that when people are very apt to take their "roles" when given them. So various heads of state that committed brutal acts where again using their power seriously, because they had it. I'd like to forgive some of these leaders for brutality because of the ends they made...

But like abuse, there were also heads of state who were given the power to get away with brutal acts, and didn't. Many of these leaders even achieved similar ends without brutality as part of their methodology. So the question at the end of this comparison is:

- are the brutal leaders/individual abusers extremely evil, and the rest of us just normal?

- or are the brutal and abusive amongst us just more in-touch with their primitive nature, and the rest of us EXRTEMELY good for resiting the urge to hurt others for our own/the worlds ends?

I'm going to take the very unpopular black-n-white position here and say that both answers are correct. People/leaders who don't use their power for brutality, and may even use it for good, are extremely commendable. And, because there is evidence that people CAN resist this urge to use brutality, those who do use it are morally culpable.

P.s. written in haste