A stain in one’s name is a serious dishonor. Rumors, as well as wrongful actions, affect how the world sees us and how we see the world. Thus human beings are victims of their own reputation. To avoid this, one tends to use pride as a shield. However, instead of protecting us, pride hurts us even more by impeding us from solving our issues.
Police officers that make wrong choices tend to be less appreciated by the society, those who make the use of discretion effectively tend to have a positive impact in the community. The article Organizational-level police discretion states that, “officers with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision making. Such biases could convince an officer that one suspect is more dangerous than another, prompting preemptive use of lethal force, and many of these biases invoke extralegal factors, such as race (Nowacki, 2015, Pg. 646).” Teaching these officers how and when to use discretion is crucial because it will allow them to apply certain strategies to different cases. Officers understand that not all situations will always be easy, either some may be dangerous; others can be simply misunderstandings between cases.
Casual naming is said to have a more noteworthy impact on consequent wrongdoing than authority marking. The reasons why people may be casually marked as delinquents, taking note of that such naming is not just an element of authority marking for example capture. Casual marking is likewise affected by the singular 's reprobate conduct and by their position in the public eye with weak people being more inclined to be named. Casual names influence people 's resulting level of wrongdoing by influencing their view of how others see them. In the event, that they accept that others see them as delinquents and inconvenience producers, they are more inclined to act as per this observation and take part in crimes (Scheff
They want to make sure when punishing an immoral act, there is benefit to society. Shaw says this because utilitarianism does give established laws and reasoning behind them. Shaw also says that Utilitarians say that our system of punishment as it functions, succeeds in rehabilitating many convicts and discourages them from future mistakes. his reasons for saying this. I think that Utilitarians favor exploring the alternatives because doing something to someone, even a criminal, who has committed a heinous crime, morally wrong, and two wrongs do not make a right, it is setting the wrong view for society.
For instance, if a person is raised to think that stealing is wrong, they have also witnessed how others who do steal are treated by society. Because they know that they will be treated badly by the society they are less likely to steal. Overall, I agree with what Fromm says because I am less likely to be disobedient because I do not want to be looked down upon by society. He means that disobedience sets individuals free and opens their eyes. A person is able to evolve from acts of disobedience because they are able to break primary bonds with nature and authority.
Like the question I wondered above, what happens when people do not learn from their consequences and continue to behave a certain way? We often start to think the worse and believe they need psychological help but maybe there is more to this theory. When a person has a negative emotional status they tend to do things in the negative form, and also their thinking and actions sometimes do not even make sense to them because they do not do it purposely they do it because they feel that is what is the right thing to do. When a person steals they know what the consequence is however they still commit the deed, we need to be able to understand why the person did what they did and what took them to that road. This emotional status causes issues and behavior that can lead to consequences that are not
Blame. An intrinsic property of humans that comes with the right of free will. It is usually defined as the action of assigning responsibility for a wrongdoing. People often resort to blame to find a means to explain their suffering. People can also blame to put their transgressions on another person because they do not want the shame on them instead of taking responsibility for their actions.
To increase their popularity or power, bullies turn their wrath on victims who are perceived as weaker than them. Although bullies may seem confident and sure of themselves, they are usually insecure and may feel inferior to others. They treat their peers like dirt as a way to make themselves feel better. Targets are specifically chosen to fulfill their reputation and for
Social influence theory refers to the change in behavior caused due the influence from one person to another. This change may happen intentionally or unintentionally depending on the relationship of the person with his surrounding people and the society as a whole. Social influence has three areas which are conformity, compliance and obedience. Conformity is where the change of behavior, values, and beliefs happens to fulfill the belonging and esteem needs and the approval of certain groups. On the other hand, Compliance is where the change in behavior happen due to being asked to do something by another person and in this case you may choose to comply or not to comply but after reconsidering the social rewards and punishments the end result will mostly lead to compliance even if the person doesn’t want to.
It gives people someone to rely on, someone to take orders from, and someone to place blame onto. The Milgram experiment is the most obvious indicator of how authority influences the actions of people. It is jointly fascinating and yet terrifying how far participants will take their actions- if they believe that the figure of authority will cover them. The limits of authority should ethically stop at the point where others will get unjustly treated. A fair argument to lay out is- how do we know that our own judgement is better than our supposed superiors?
As Dr. King stated individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as, rein hold Niebuhr has reminded us, group tend to be more immoral then individuals. In other words those who see the un-peaceful situation hold their tongue when with a group and the tension of the group restricts the one individual to not speak