In contrast, “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” focuses on the history of mass death goes back as far as 500 years ago. Sartwell cited some historical events that happened, including the Cambodian Killing Field, Nazi Holocaust, Cultural Revolution, Belgians vs. Congolese and the African Slave Trade. In his article, Sartwell assumes that authority especially hierarchies is the most “evil” thing in our society. Sartwell also states that all humans are "evil” (Sartwell), but then ask if evil is something that is learned behavior through institutional means, for example through media and bureaucracy.
Whether working with a co-worker, learning with a classmate or hanging out with a friend, the thought of any of them having the potential to be evil does not cross the mind. Everyday people are not typically evil beings, but if people are not evil beings then why do they commit actions like torture, killing and genocide? Could it be that the certain people committing the acts are just monsters deep inside, or could the actions be mere products of circumstance? In his article "The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror", Crispin Sartwell, a journalist and philosopher, advises his audience to take a look at the heinous acts people have committed throughout history as a way to show us how anyone could commit evil acts, including ourselves. Marianne Szegedy-Maszak,
Throughout the history of the world, people have displayed hatred towards each other by fighting many wars. Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, gave a speech at Buchenwald to the President, Chancellor, and people of Germany. Throughout the speech, he establishes that people should learn from past experiences that war, hatred, and racism are meaningless. He accomplishes this belief by using pathos to connect to people’s feelings and emotions. By using pathos, Wiesel develops the central idea of the speech that everyone should change for the better future by accepting wars, hatred, and racism as “not an option.”
Humans are powerful creatures. They can adapt quickly to any environment they surround themselves with. Not only this, but it creates a large amount of curiosity towards humans with what they do and why. People may want to help others and themselves or would want to bring others down and create pain. There will always be someone with a mindset of corrupt actions. Let’s face it, individuals are brought to the decision each day to be good or evil. A person's actions can affect others in several different ways. I believe that any person can be good, evil and that the environment around us shape us to be either good or evil. Therefore, humans are not born evil, their evil choices determine who they are as a person and here is why.
Elie Wiesel’s somber speech, “The Perils of Indifference”, demonstrated the harsh reality of the numerous evils harvesting in the world. The main evil though was simply indifference, or a lack of concern. As a young Jewish boy, he faced the wickedness of the Holocaust, imprisoned at Buchenwald and Auschwitz and also losing both his parents and younger sister. The speaker saw atrocious horrors and suffered for a prolonged amount of time. Why was this permitted? Wiesel pinpoints the indifference of humans as the real enemy, causing further suffering and lost to those already in peril.
Evil comes in various shapes and sizes. While good is found all over, it is also masked by the evil that overpowers it. Controlled through physical, and verbal manipulation, people are easily tricked into thinking that what is right, is wrong and what is wrong, is right. Whether they are committed to being good, there will always be a moment where evil will darken the bright side of a person 's soul. In the novel The Sisters Brothers by Patrick DeWitt, the author portrays the good and evil side of human nature through the main characters to show how susceptible it is to manipulate a person’s mindset to be good or evil.
Through out history evil has been best depicted as the absence of goodness and goodness as the absence of evil. With goodness being comprehended as the direct opposite of evil. It is under speculation that maybe there can 't exist only one general meaning of good vs. evil. I trust this, in light of the fact that any one individual 's perception of good or evil is without a doubt directed by one 's social comprehension of certain qualities and ethics within their culture, i.e. the power of social conformity (Muncaster-Social Psychology Lecture, 2016). Yes, there can be cases of evil that is seen as malevolent all over the world but due to the ethnocentric component of the perception of cultural morals and values, one is unable to categorize another individual as evil or good based upon their own cultural understanding of this notion. As they have been socially and culturally influenced to believe contrary to the fact.
Without thinking, the laws and social rules we abide by every day are actually a fragile barrier keeping the worst of human nature from overtaking modern society. In the allegorical novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, a plane full of British school boys is shot down over an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. They are stranded without adult supervision or means to communicate with the outside world. This creates the perfect setting for Golding to explore the best and worst of human nature. It is in this setting that Golding illustrates what can happen when laws and rules vanish and human instinct reigns. Although everyone has the capacity to act good, there is also evil within everyone and it is only
Human nature I believe is evil. This might sound a bit harsh in some ways but subsequently, Humans are definitely prone to do bad things. This feeling was also experienced by some philosophers that we have studied this year, Philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that human nature is inherently tainted. He believed that people will act immorally based on the extent on their corrupted nature if left without order. This might explain why anarchy leads to higher amount of crime and bad deeds, because there is no controlling leader. This shows why Hobbes believed in the monarchial form of government. Good is considered as morally righteous and evil is moral wrongdoing. I think that humans are inherently evil because they have to make an effort
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions. There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions. Are we responsible for some of our actions after all? If so, under what circumstances? Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.
People can be defined as neither good nor evil because many factors lead to us being a mixture of both. One of these factors is that we only have one perspective of life and the actions they do. This means we don 't have all the information to be able to form an opinion on them. Another factor is that we are unable to measure how good or bad an action is. This means that we can not say if the good actions they did outweigh the bad actions that they did in their life. These factors mean that we are unable to judge people and say whether they are good or bad.
My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection. Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive.
“The Problem of Evil” is simply the question, why does God allow evil to happen? God is omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, and rational, therefore why does evil exist? There is either no God or he is not what we think he is, since evil could be prevented by him with no risk. Atheists and anti-theodicist see a problem with the idea that God could prevent evil. They believe that because God is so powerful and perfect, that he would not allow such immoral actions to be done. On the other hand, theists like Swinburne, believe that evil is necessary for important reasons such as that it helps us grow and improve. In this paper I will argue that the theist is right, because the good of the evil in this specific case on problems beyond one’s control, outweighs the bad that comes from it.
The nature of evil is a central point within the texts Schindler’s List, directed by Steven Spielberg, The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell, The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas, by Ursula Le Guin, and The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson. These four texts pose the question whether or not being passive in the face of an evil that one could do something against is as evil as the original act, or how it sizes up to the original act of evil. These four texts all have examples of passivity in the face of evil, such as the Allies in WWII ignoring the Holocaust, or The Village going along with the tradition of stoning people for good crops, along with several more. All four texts show us how humans can “stick their heads in the sand” just to avoid culpability in exchange for human beings’ quality of life.
Evil is a simple word that we learn at a young age and that we understand is bad. However, our youth and innocence prevents us from knowing the weight the word holds. As our understanding of evil develops, we begin to see evil all around us. Although we hold common societal definitions of evil, each person is bound to view evil slightly different from others. Someone might consider alcoholism evil, while others consider it normal: someone might believe racism is evil, while others believe it is natural. Evil is unique to each individual, how people were raised and what they were exposed to will alter their definition of evil. However, people generally agree that homicide, rape, torture, genocide, and terrorism are all evil. Causing agony or suffering is considered evil. Manipulating the weak or manipulating children, in any way, is considered evil. Despite our societal understanding that these acts are evil and that evil is bad, we witness evil nearly every day. This unconformity, these people knowing what is evil yet still doing the evil, cannot be explained simply.