The debate over human nature often centers on whether humans are born evil or good. Many argue that people start life with an inherent capacity for malice and that negative actions are a natural part of human nature. However, this perspective contrasts with the reality that humans are generally born with an innate capacity for goodness, driven by natural empathy and moral instincts.
The Marshall Effect, named after the renowned American Colonel S. L. A. Marshall, referred to the observation that many soldiers in combat situations historically refrained from firing their weapons at the enemy. The phenomenon was brought about during the Second World War when Colonel Marshall conducted studies and discovered that many soldiers did not engage in active combat, even when given the opportunity and despite any commands being issued. This reluctance to shoot, often due to psychological factors, suggested that soldiers experienced a profound distaste for killing, driven by a deep-seated human resistance to take another life.
During the war, Colonel Marshall meticulously gathered data on the soldier’s actual behavior in combat situations, asking pointed questions about whether they had fired their weapons; if not, he would ask if they had refrained from doing so. By collecting firsthand accounts, he uncovered that a significant proportion of soldiers admitted to not firing their weapons at the enemy, even when they were in a position to do so. This candid feedback contrasted the expectations of military effectiveness and highlighted a critical gap between training and actual combat performance.
The suggestions of the Marshall Effect are profound, highlighting a dichotomy between the training soldiers receive and their actions on the battlefield. Despite rigorous drills and conditioning aimed at preparing soldiers for combat, many found themselves unable to overcome their inherited moral and psychological barriers. The reluctance is not exactly a cowardly behavior but rather an indication of the complex interaction between human nature and the brutal demands of warfare. In recognizing and addressing the Marshall Effect, military institutions acknowledged the importance of internal resistance and ethical considerations in warfare. The phenomenon underscores the need for a more humane approach to military training, one that respects the psychological well-being of soldiers while preparing them for the realities of combat.
Studies, such as the findings of the Marshall Effect, reveal that humans generally possess strong moral resistance to harming others. This supports the belief that people are more inclined towards empathy and ethical behavior, highlighting that the inherent nature of humanity leans towards goodness.
References:
King, A. (n.d.). 3 3 the Marshall effect. Oxford Academic. academic.oup.com/book/7431/chapter-abstract/152304200?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Bregman, R., Manton, E., & Moore, E. (2021). Colonel Marshall and the Soldiers Who Wouldn’t Shoot. In Humankind: A hopeful history (pp. 73–91). essay, Little, Brown and Company.
MARSHALL, S. L. A. (2023). Men against fire: The problem of battle command. MARTINO FINE BOOKS.
Comments