Understanding Chaos

Understanding Chaos
In this first 100 days of  2017, here in America and in some other countries, there has been a great deal of what we like to call chaos. Chaos is “complete disorder or disruption.” However, I’m going to challenge us all, especially Freemasons, to look at Chaos differently. We put “Order out of Chaos” but what does this mean? The challenge I have is to look at Chaos as something different and necessary to life and growth, or at least our ability to tell the difference.
 

Let me first start by saying this is not, emphasis on NOT, a political discussion. This is using an event in politics to illustrate a point. However you feel about the politics/events, right or wrong, is irrelevant to the content of this blog. What I want to do is illustrate how science and nature have a real place in our processes to affect change. Think differently. That said, here we go.

A recent event happened in politics in America – the Immigration Executive Order that Trump signed on January 27th. The executive order was, by mostly-credible accounts thus far, written by Steve Bannon, a self-designated fear monger. He stated, in a 2010 interview, “Fear is a good thing. Fear is going to lead you to take action.” He also stated that “I’m a Leninist,” [quoted as saying by a writer for The Daily Beast] He later said he did not recall the conversation. “Lenin wanted to destroy the stA30B258A-524B-4688-9D2F-EE9E6F4D5652ate, and that’s my goal, too,” the site quoted him as saying. “I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”  Mr. Bannon told The Washington Post this year, “We call ourselves ‘the Fight Club.’ You don’t come to us for warm and fuzzy. We think of ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly ‘anti-’ the permanent political class. We say Paul Ryan was grown in a petri dish at the Heritage Foundation.”

I do not think that Mr. Bannon is alone in
his thinking this way, especially across the current appointees and heads of various government agencies. I think Trump has a specific goal in mind: introduce chaos into the system to turn it on its head and change it. The difficulty that most people have is that it is chaos mixed with fear, hatred, and injustice – not Masonic values at all.

In a recent Facebook posting, historian Heather Cox Richardson explained this “shock event” in very succinct and clear terms – what it is, what the outcomes may be, and what we can do to overcome it. The full text can be found in this blog. I think that one of the best sentences in this piece, and one we should all take hold of is this: “But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.” Her point, in other words, is that we don’t have to react in ways we’ve always reacted – we can take our emotions and work differently. It takes consciousness, focus, and effort. It takes energy. Energy.

Here’s where I want to turn chaos on its head. In the world of science, specifically physics and thermodynamics, chaos equates to entropy. Entropy is not sitting on your couch, drinking a Coors, and watching the game. No. In physics, entropy is the lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder. Simply stated, entropy is the spreading of energy until it is evenly spread. A great, in-depth, and head-expanding article on the second law of thermodynamics and entropy is here. I warn you, it’s long and even though it says “simple,” it takes focus to really follow the whole article. Bottom line: let’s just say, energy disperses.

If you look at our country, or any “related system” I will call it, we were founded by many humans with a great deal of energy for change. Events which upset the equilibrium – taxation, religious persecution, and the like – created energy, which in turn led people to expend their energy differently – fighting for and creating a new country and a new form of government. This energy, related to the creating of the United States of America, has over time, received influxes of upsets to its equilibrium; these are the events more remembered as shapers of the country. It is how we got to where we are today.

How does this relate to thermodynamics and physics? Hang with me, I’m getting there. There is new discussion about entropy and how physics can be applied to the biology of life. Another long article but with a very clear video about the thoughts and theories is found here. In essence, the article explains that in the end, thought (that is, intention, logic, and problem-solving) are the keys to fighting entropy and disorder. Another way of looking at this is that the destruction of forms happens because of entropy; the introduction of an upset to the equilibrium staves off entropy (chaos) and causes the current energy to reorganize and become a viable source for change. We can look at teleology as having a connection to thermodynamics rather than biology. Simply said, thought is energy.

Did I lose you? I might have lost myself. But, stay with me. Where I’m getting to is this: Freemasonry values nature and science – we need to look at both for the answers of how did we get here and where do we go next. Let’s take a step and connect biology, physics, and politics, weird as that may be, into a line and we can see how we got here. And, to Heather Cox Richardson’s point, how we get out. We need to take whatever energies we receive from the upset of the equilibrium and turn it into a thoughtful way to change our world.

Like the small discs of atoms the researchers used in their experiments in the above article, we too can use tools and socially organize into effective change advocates. We can create something new from the impetus we’ve been given. To me, Freemasonry has given me the balance to look at something like Chaos as see it as a blessing. I’m not talking about how that chaos is delivered, which may involve incredible emotional and physical upheaval. Pain, Fear, Hate, Ignorance – all of these continue. It is in our responses where we can affect the change. Until we think about our next moves, use the energy that we’ve been given to that plan of thought, and execute well, the shock event will actually create nothing new at all. I might even venture to say that what we might view as negative change can actually be what positive change needs to get going. All of these lessons are clear in nearly all degrees of Freemasonry. Sometimes, it takes chaos for us to see the value in what we’re learning. If we can take a breath and use our thought processes to absorb the disruption, we might be able to see the value in all sides of an event.

Is Freemasonry a Cult?

Is Freemasonry a Cult?

As one of the largest organizations in the world, Freemasonry has weathered its share of criticism. In America, questions have been raised as to whether the fraternal organization qualifies as a “cult.” The Oxford Dictionary defines cult as “a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.” However, another definition describes a cult as “A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.” Obviously, the definition utilized makes maxwebera difference as to which organizations fit the term “cult.”  Is Freemasonry a cult?

 Sociological Analysis of Cults

The German political economist and sociologist Max Weber is considered to be a founder of Sociology:  the scientific study of social behavior, including its origins, development, organization, and institutions. In his book Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Weber describes the role charismatic leaders play in the formation and operations of extreme groups such as cults.

Weber writes about charismatic leaders as possessing a “certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities.” Weber established a way to distinguish different religious organizations, such as churches, sects, and cults. Utilizing a continuum along which religions fall, Sociologists differentiate between protest-like orientation of sects to the equilibrium maintaining churches. The diagram below illustrates a church-sect typology continuum.

ReligionChurchSectCultBeginning in the 1930s, Sociology was utilized to explore cults within the context of the study of religious behavior. In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices. Sociologist Roy Wallis argued that cults are “oriented towards the problems of individuals, loosely structured, tolerant, non-exclusive” without possessing a “clear distinction between members and non-members” and having “a rapid turnover of membership.”

By sociological typology, cults are new religious groups representing a radical rejection of the teachings and beliefs of established faith traditions. Often resulting during periods of social turmoil, cults tend to operate within a distinct period of time before either collapsing or amalgamating into another larger religious group. Three main characteristics are often used in defining the “cult” status of an organization:

  1. Founded by a charismatic leader, as described by Max Weber
  2. Claim a new revelation or insight from God that deviates from traditional faiths
  3. Viewed with extreme suspicion by society and dominant religionstao-te-ching

Freemasonry and Religion

Freemasonry is an ancient system designed to impart morality and ethics and teach mutual service to its members. Utilizing the matrix enumerated above, we can examine whether the organization qualifies as a cult by sociological metrics. Modern Freemasonry is generally traced back to the early 1700s although some groups claim it existed prior to the 18th century and was not founded by a single leader. Furthermore, Masonry is founded upon traditional faiths and does not espouse any new revelations. Within a Masonic Lodge, many holy texts are revered including the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, and the Hindu Vedas. All of these books provide examples of moral truths, such as the Golden Rule, and constitute ethical guidelet-there-be-lights to teach individuals.

Expanding beyond sociology, general definitions of a cult, as listed at the beginning of this article, are tied to whether or not the organization is a religion. Although Masonry expresses a belief in a Supreme Deity and the immortality of the human soul, Freemasonry is not a religion. Each individual is entitled to hold their own view about the nature of God. Within Freemasonry there are Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc. In order to join Freemasonry, individuals must believe in God, but they are left to their own choice as to the attributes of God. The renown Free Masonic scholar, Albert Mackey, wrote describing the religious inclusivity of the fraternity by stating: “God is equally present with the pious Hindu in the Temple, the Jew in the Synagogue, the Mohammedan in the Mosque, and the Christian in Church.”

The-Four-vedas-of-HinduismTo qualify as a “Religion,” Academic Scholars have established characteristics including, but not limited to:

  1. A Plan of Salvation
  2. A Theology
  3. Dogmas
  4. Sacraments
  5. Clergy

Freemasonry contains none of these tenets which define an organization as a “Religion.” Instead Masonry seeks to make good individuals better through self-improvement, service, and brotherhood. Masonry is a fraternal organization that encourages morality, charity, and philosophical studies. It has no clergy, no sacraments, abible-lightnd does not promise salvation to its members. Moreover, Masonry rejects dogma and inspires individuals to utilize reason to search for Truth.

In Masonic Lodges, discussions and debates on social, philosophical, or religious questions have no other purpose than the intellectual enlightenment of its members. Such discussion enable all members to reach for a greater understanding of themselves and Humanity in the pursuit of fulfilling their duties as Freemasons. In American Co-Masonry, those duties include: to think high, to do well, to be tolerant to others, to search after truth, and to practice liberty under law, fraternal equality, justice and solidarity. Utilizing builders’ tools as symbols, Freemasonry teaches basic moral truths that enable individuals to meet in harmony and be charitable.

Touching the Void: Freemasonry and the Responsibility of Protecting One’s Fellow Man

Touching the Void: Freemasonry and the Responsibility of Protecting One’s Fellow Man

What responsibility do we have towards our fellow man? Masonry teaches that each of us is “our brother’s keeper” and that mankind consists of a Universal Brotherhood. When safe and secure, we may be quick to argue that we would go out of our way to save our friend, brother, or neighbor. What would happen, however, if you were forced to choose between saving your own life versus protecting the life of another? Touching the Void, a book written by Mountaineer Joe Simpson, tells the harrowing true story of two men trapped on a mountain faced with such a life and death situation.

The Journey: Climbing The Siula Grande

In 1985, Joe Simpson and Simon Yates had a bold, yet dangerous dream: to be the first climbers to summit the Siula Grande in the Peruvian Andes. Touching the Void begins with the following quote by T.E. Lawrence from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom:

“All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible.”

Siula GrandeDespite perilous conditions, Yates and Simpson became such “dreamers of the day,” making their dream a reality by ascending the Siula Grande’s 4,500-foot west face in three days. Their celebration was short lived, however, as disaster struck during the treacherous descent of the peak. Whiteout conditions enveloped the climbers eventually leading to Simpson slipping down an ice cliff and breaking his leg, crushing his tibia into his knee joint. The team’s ambitious ascent had depleted their supplies, and they no longer had fuel for heating, cooking, or melting snow for drinking water. With daylight fading and Simpson in critical condition due to this injury, the pair had no option but to attempt a fast and tricky descent of 3,000 feet back to base camp.

With his right leg shattered, Simpson relied on his climbing partner to methodically lower him down the mountain 300 feet at a time via two knotted ropes. Simon Yates reflected on his burdensome new responsibility, “I knew I couldn’t leave him while he was still fighting for it.” Hour after hour, Simpson and Yates made painstakingly slow progress down the mountain. Eventually, a blizzard surrounded the climbers bringing chaos and destroying communicationThefall between the pair. In the confusion, Yates mistakenly lowered Simpson over the edge of a cliff. Dangling eighty feet above a crevasse, the injured and exhausted Simpson was unable to climb back to safety with his frost-bitten fingers.

Yates’ Ultimate Moral Dilemma

Swallowed by the blizzard, Yates was essentially blind to his partner’s situation. Because of the weight on rope, he knew Simpson was suspended over some kind of cliff, but he was unable to see or communicate with his partner. He also was unable to pull Simpson back up to safety. Through sheer willpower, Yates kept his footing on the icy slope for over an hour protecting both from plummeting into the void. His strength failing, Yates faced the moral dilemma of his life: should he save himself by cutting the rope and send Simpson to almost certain death?

As his snow anchor began to collapse,  Yates cut the rope and Simpson’s body plummeted down the cliff and into a crevasse: a deep fissure in a mountain glacier. When Simon Yates descended to the ice cavern,  he called out to Simpson but received no response. Assuming his partner was killed in the fall, Yates made his way back to base camp.

Simpson’s Survival

Miraculously, Simpson survived the 150 foot fall, landing on an ice shelf inside the crevasse. When Simpson regained consciousness, he discovered the cut rope end and realized what his partner had done. If he wanted to live, Simpson knew he had to save himself. Repelling further into the dark ice cave, Simpson discovered a small opening in the ice and climbed out of the glacier, emerging like Lazarus from his tomb.

Forced to crawl due to his injuries, Simpson tenaciously began a three day crawl back to base camp. Exhausted and fighting delirium, he reached base camp only a few hours before Yates was set to leave. Arriving at camp, Yates and another climber treated Simpson’s injuries, and the three men then traveled back to civilization.

Somewhat surprisingly, Simpson expressed understanding and sympathy for Yates in his fateful decision to sever the rope. He reflected, “ Simon (Yates) did more than anybody could possibly have been asked to do to save someone’s life. Everybody misses that crucial point. He took a very pragmatic decision. He wasn’t to know I went down a crevasse. He wasn’t cutting a rope to kill me; he was cutting a rope to save himself.”

Many climbing experts argue that, paradoxically, it was Simon Yates selfish decision to cut the rope and save his own life that also saved his climbing partner, Joe Simpson. Even if Yates could have held him aloft for many more hours, many argue that Simpson would have died from exposure to the elements. Simpson, while understanding his partner’s decision, writes in Touching the Void about his initial hope that he was still connect to Yates: “Did he fall with me? Find out… pull the rope! I tugged on the loose rope. It moved easily…. I pulled again and soft snow flurried on to me. I pulled steadily, and as I did so I became excited. This was a chance to escape.” Based on Simpson’s position after the fall, there was more than a chancsimpsone that Yates would have also lived, either landing on the ledge or being held aloft by the rope tethered to Simpson. Realizing that his partner had left him to perish, Simpson was filled with despair and faced with the improbable odds of returning to base camp alone.

Freemasonry and the Responsibility of Protecting Our Fellow Man

When an individual acts against their own self-interest,  should we let that person fall, metaphorically speaking, in order that they can develop the strength and wisdom to rescue themselves? The institution of Freemasonry exists as an exception to modern society’s tendency to severe ties and abdicate responsibility towards those who are struggling in a state of darkness. As a brotherhood comprised of men and women, senior Masons with experience and knowledge lend a helping hand to those who may lack the guidance and support necessary to change themselves.  As freemasons, we are obligated to help our fellows, regardless of their background or station in life. Interestingly, the word “obligation” is derived from the same Latin root as “ligament.” A cord by which one thing is tied to another, a ligament is not dissimilar to the very rope which held Simpson above the precipice. Bound by oath, Masons stand firm as protectors of humanity refusing to sever the tie that binds regardless of the consequence.

 

Do We Have an Obligation to Protect the Endangered? Molecular Ecology’s Role in Saving the Greenback Cutthroat Trout

Do We Have an Obligation to Protect the Endangered? Molecular Ecology’s Role in Saving the Greenback Cutthroat Trout

In today’s hectic world,  it is easy to turn a blind eye to concerns outside our direct purview. Our willful blindness becomes even more pervasive when it comes to issues which are unpopular or which lack a perceivable benefit to our lives. Freemasons, however, are called to stand up for what is right, just, and true. Do we have an obligation to protect the endangered?

The Endangered Species Act

As one of the more controversial U.S. laws, the Endangered Species Act has been derided as detrimental to progress and to the economy. When President Richard Nixon declared the need foBackfromtheBrinkr increased species conservation, Congress responded by passing the Endangered Species Act which was signed by Nixon on December 28, 1973.

The Act’s goal is to prevent the extinction of imperiled species, and to recover those populations by decreasing threats to their survival. In the forty-two years since the bill was passed, only 10 species protected under the Act have been declared extinct. Scientists estimate that at least 227 species would have likely gone extinct without the legislation. The Bald Eagle and the Grizzly Bear are two notable species that have been saved from extinction and removed from the list.

Colorado’s State Fish: The Greenback Cutthroat Trout

As of 2014, there were 1,261 endangered species protected by the ESA which includes Colorado’s State Fish: the Greenback Cutthroat Trout. Presumed to be extinct in 1937, a few wild populations of the trout were discovered in the basins of the South Platte and Arkansas Rivers. Following the listing of the fish under the Endangered Species Act, the scientific community launched a conservation campaign. Questions over the genetic characteristics of the elusive fish prevented the establishment of wild populations as empirical eviBearCreekGreenBackdence demonstrates that successful restoration of an endangered species requires knowledge of the species’ diversity and distribution.

The Role of Molecular Ecology

The science of Molecular Ecology provided the missing link to preventing the species’ demise. Molecular ecology applies molecular population genetics, molecular phylogenetics, and genomics to solve traditional ecological questions. Researchers at the University of Colorado analyzed the DNA extracted from wild trout and from preserved specimens collected as far back as 1857. The team first collected multiple samples of tissue and bone from the preserved trout specimens, obtaining fragments of DNA which they pieced together like a high-tech jigsaw puzzle to reveal two telltale genes of the individual specimens.  Utilizing the genetic data from museum samples, scientists were able to pinpoint the location of the last surviving wild population of the greenback cutthroat trout.

Led by Dr. Jessica Metcalf and Dr. Andrew Martin, the team was able to collect trout for repopulation efforts from  Bear Creek, a small tributary of the Arkansas River west of Colorado Springs. Since the trout were outside of their native habitat, the researchers concluded that the fish were placed there as a restocking effort. US Fish and Wildlife Service’s fisheries biologist Chris Kennedy discovered documentation that from 1889 and 1925, more than 50 million cutthroat trout from the Gunnison and White River Basins were stocked across Colorado, including in Bear Creek.  

Dr. Jessica Metcalf

– Dr. Jessica Metcalf, Evolutionary Biologist

Using the Bear Creek Greenbacks, conservationists have been successful in replicating the population. Dr. Metcalf explained her success stating, “This is a real win for conservation genetics. We were able to use historical specimens to find out something quite novel about cutthroat trout biodiversity that has resulted in a management action. We are not just bringing a native species back to its historic range, but the greenback cutthroat trout, our Colorado state fish.” The aquatics team of Colorado Parks and Wildlife oversaw the raising of approximately 3,500 greenback cutthroat trout, offspring of fish taken from Bear Creek, at the Mt. Shavano State Rearing Unit and the Leadville National Fish Hatchery. “We finally have the opportunity to bring these fish home,” Biologist Doug Krieger reported about the introduction of the fish into Zimmerman Lake. On August 8, 2014, in an effort spearheaded by the greenback cutthroat recovery team, Colorado’s state fish was reintroduced to its native range.

Freemasonry: Protecting the Endangered

In our modern culture is “truth” an endangered species? In America, espousing moral relativism, an unwillingness or inability to make judgments about what is right or wrong, has become an accepted norm. When ethical, moral, or social issues are debated in the public sphere, the use of rationality and logic to address such issues is often discouraged in order to foster a climate of inclusiveness. We must, however, be wary of confusing tolerance with moral ambiguity.  Freemasonry teaches individuals to living a life of high moral rectitude and to seek the truth in all situations. Whether the discussion relates to endangered wildlife, censorship, or euthanasia, an objective search for the underlying truth is often ignored to the detriment of all.

A System of Morality: Masonry and Psychology’s Stanford Prison Experiment

A System of Morality: Masonry and Psychology’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Freemasonry has been described as a “system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols.” Is morality an important aspect of a properly functioning society? The social science of Psychology has delved into this issue extensively, including the research conducted in the Stanford Prison Experiment. The experiment was intended to study the psychological effects of a simulated prison environment on individuals, which devolved to a point where participants were subjected to cruel and dehumanizing abuse.  The primary conclusion of the experiment was that in such a high stress scenario the resulting behavior of the participants supported a situationist rather than a dispositionalist explanation of conformity. Does an internal moral compass, such as one is taught to develop in Freemasonry, allow individuals to avoid conforming to negative situational pressures placed upon them?

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford prison experiment conducted a study of the psychological effects of arbitrarily becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 at Stanford University from August 14th to 20th.The study began with an ad in the classifieds: “Male college students needed for psychological study of prison life. $15 per day for 1-2 weeks beginning Aug. 14.” More than seventy men volunteered to take part in the study which was conducted in a fake prison housed inside 0115prisonJordan Hall on Stanford’s Main Quadrangle. Leading the study was 38-year-old psychology professor Philip Zimbardo who, along with his research team, selected 24 male applicants and randomly assigned 12 to be prisoners and 12 to be guards.

With funding and support from the U.S. Office of Naval Research, Professor Zimbardo created a scenario to investigate the psychological impacts of a simulated prison environment on all participants including those playing prisoners as well as guards. Specifically, he sought to determine whether participants in the study would adapt to situational attribution or dispositional attribution behaviors under certain variables. Having been approved by Stanford’s Human Subjects Research Committee, Zimbardo abruptly ended the study after only six days, stating that “neither they nor we could have imagined” that the guards would treat the prisoners so inhumanely.

Inside the Prison

The prison-like environment was set up in the basement of the University’s Psychology Building: Jordan Hall. The 24 participants were selected based on a lack of criminal background, psychological issues, and medical conditions. The prisoners were arrested at their homes by actual police officers, booked in a police station, and brostanford-prison-experimentught to the simulated prison where they were placed into six by nine-foot prison cells with three prisoners in each cell.

Professor Zimbardo encouraged the guards to think of themselves as actual guards in a real prison. He clearly and repeatedly instructed the guards that the prisoners could not be physically harmed. Instead, Zimbardo told the guards to create an atmosphere in which the prisoners felt “powerless.” Guards and the warden utilized rooms across from the cells. A closet was used for solitary confinement, and another room served as the prison yard. Prisoners had to remain in the mock prison night and day for the duration of the experiment while guards were allowed to leave after each eight hour shift. Researchers used hidden cameras and microphones to observe the behavior of the participants.

The guards became abusive as early as the second day of the experiment, and some prisoners began showing signs of extreme stress and anxiety. The guards began to act in ways that were aggressive and even dehumanizing toward the prisoners while the prisoners became passive and depressed and some were even despondent, began crying, and showed other signs of severe negative emotions. T2015-07-27-1438029404-8000872-2ePrisonExp3_smallerhe researchers, themselves, became so engrossed in the situation that they began to lose sight of the reality of what was happening.

For six days, half the study’s participants, the 12 “prisoners,” endured cruel and dehumanizing abuse at the hands of their peers. At various times, they were verbally taunted, stripped naked, deprived of sleep, and forced to use plastic buckets within the cells for a toilet. The prisoners reacted in a variety of ways: some refused to comply; some rebelled violently; some became hysterical or withdrew into despair.

As the situation descended into chaos, the team of researchers merely stood by and watched. Zimbardo had planned for the experiment to last for 14 days but ended the experiment after just six days on account of a female Ph.D. student raising questions about the morality of what was happening in the mock prison environment.

Ending the Experiment

Professor Zimbardo arranged for all members of the experiment, the prisoners, guards, and staff, to be interviewed by uninvolved faculty members and graduate students. Ph.D. Candidate Christina Maslach observed the guards line up the prisoners at the 10 p.m. appointed bathroom break. When the prisoners came out of their cells, the guards put bags over their heads, chained their feet together, and forced them to move in unison like a chain gang. The guards then began cursing and yelling at the prisoners. Visibly shaken, Christina responded, “I can’t look at this,” and left the basement.Konnikova-The-Stanford-Prison-Experiment-1200

When Zimbardo followed Maslach outside of the building, she questioned the morality of what his experiment was doing to the students. She said, “It’s terrible what you’re doing to these boys. How can you see what I saw and not care about the suffering?” At this point, Professor Zimbardo realized that his view of reality had been altered by the experiment, and he immediately terminated the study.

Freemasonry’s Morality Instruction

Freemasonry teaches the importance of morality and provides instruction to members as to how to treat others as themselves. Masonry upholds the virtues of cha11425174_1131348653548603_3374741560606323912_n (1)rity, temperance, fortitude, and justice: all which were absent from the Stanford Prison Experiment.

A strong moral compass is necessary when an individual faces peer pressure or authoritative demands to act in an inhumane fashion towards his fellow man. By subduing the animalistic tendencies of violence and hatred, individuals can be elevated above responding to situational pressures. Adherence to an internal moral code is necessary to inherently know what is right and what is wrong, regardless of the situation.