Many psychologists and researchers have for many years tried to explain what makes normal human beings become evil and become perpetrators of evil. The study of a normal human being becoming a perpetrator of evil has almost become it’s own branch of psychology. There are many examples of evil actions in this world, which has led to a lot of research of the human mind; where evil is born. Hitler, Anders Breivik, and Jim Jones are just a few examples of the many evil human minds we have seen in this world. All people, who were thought to hold the same mindset as everyone else. The big question is, what creates these evil people, and what gives them such an evil mindset? By focusing on the mind of Jim Jones, this paper will attempt
When it comes to defining morality and establishing the difference between right and wrong, there are several different approaches. One might ask who is responsible for distinguishing between right and wrong and ultimately what is moral and immoral. Is this concept different between individuals? Is it different between cultures? In Julia Driver’s 2007 piece, “God and Human Nature”, theories are discussed in order to convey a better understanding of morality and how it is determined. The theory to be discussed is the “Divine Command Theory” and Driver discusses the role of God in assessing morality.
In Thomas Nagel’s response to Bernard William’s, Moral Luck, Nagel questions whether our “moral goodness” or “moral badness” is simply a matter of sheer luck. Judging if someone is in fact “good” or “bad” or in other words, the way we are, the circumstances we face and, the way things turn out are indeed caused by luck. In this paper, I will confirm Nagel’s assertions in that the way things turn out, how we respond to given situations, and how one was raised are all a matter of luck in deciding ones moral goodness or badness.
I never think about whether I have free will or not before . Every time I made a decision, I took it for granted. I thought what I thought was right and I did not doubt my decisions. Because it was my own decisions. I was confident about my decisions, which did not mean that I did not contemplate; I thought about things outside my mind but not my ability to think freely and act freely. I In terms of free will, there is a dispute between determinists, metaphysical libertarian, and compatibilists. Determinists states that people have no free will as there is a cause and effect relationship between two event, while metaphysical libertarian argues that people do have free will because they feel free to make a decision by following their will. With
The book addresses, as evident by its title, how good people turn evil, but it goes beyond this simple statement. Further than just turning evil, Zimbardo suggests the line between good and evil is more blurred than many believe, and that good people do not necessarily fully become evil, but rather often perform evil deeds when their situation so allows. The major example given in the book of how people become evil, is Zimbardo’s own infamous Stanford Prison Experiment. He uses this to demonstrate many of the underlying causes which cause a person to do things they usually would not. His main argument throughout the text is that unlikely evil is almost always situational, not inherent or genetic. He emphasizes the effect that pressure and authority can have
In this paper I am going to explain what Divine Command Theory is. Then I will explain an objection to it called the Euthyphro Objection. Lastly I will explain Quinn’s response to the Euthyphro Objection and raise an objection to his treatment of the objection.
In this essay I will explore two articles that explain the moral theory. The first article is called “ Selections from Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals” by Immanuel Kant. The second article that I will be comparing to Immanuel Kant’s is called “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics” by Onora O’Niell. I will also be giving a brief summary and comparing each article. By the end of this essay I would like to prove that O’Neill’s account of Kant’s moral theory is a much easier and appropriate way of looking at things.
“Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs”(Information Philosopher, 2015). It refers to the claim that, at any moment or place in time, there is only one possible future for the whole universe. However, the concept of determinism often comes into question when looking into whether human beings possess free will. Free Will can be defined as “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion” (Defence of Reason, 2014). The very definition of the terms determinism and free will appear to be conflicting however, many philosophical thinkers
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.
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals.
The debate regarding whether or not humans are ultimately responsible for their actions and decisions has grown rapidly in the twenty-first century, as this debate was mainly a theological and philosophical debate, rather than a scientific one, and mainly a debate restricted to experts and scholars. The two opposing theories which create such a debate are Libertarianism and Determinism. Libertarianism proposes the argument that free choice is true, and since it is true, complete causal determinism must be false and does not exist. This view accepts the psychological image and rejects the mechanistic image of one’s actions and decisions. The psychological image, also known as the ‘common sense view’ looks at the mind, feelings, and emotions,
A desire for meaning would also include obtaining some kind of “identity,” or individualism. Yet, society or someone will try to force their “ideal” moral system onto everyone else. “Thinking may be “good for nothing” in the world, but in the mind it is good for guidance—not legislation, but guidance” (Bruehl 193). If you base your moral standards off everyone else’s, even when in truth you think in a different way, then in the eyes of an existentialist, you have been degraded and reduced to an object. “We must act and judge in ways that do not violate the actually existing solidarity of mankind” (Bruehl 193). The main protagonist in Albert Camus’ the Stranger, ends up being sent
Was Eichmann guilty? Zimbardo argument could place Eichmann as a victim rather than a criminal. A person, victim of the situational forces and the social dynamics in which he was immersed. The same forces that took his agency away, operated in most of the society members who did or did not. But, not everybody was put on trial, only those who were assumed to be the more responsible were judged. From the beginning, the agency that Zimbardo talks about was taken for granted. All accuses expressed they were just following orders, doing their job, acting on behalf of a greater good.
In order to be truly morally responsible for one 's actions one would have to be the cuase of itself,at least in certain crucial mental respects.
Moritz Schlick is a representative of logical positivism doctrine. His definition of free will, determinism and moral responsibility derives from the definition of punishment. He supposes that “Punishment is an educative measure, and as such is a means to the formation of motives, which are in part to prevent the wrongdoer from repeating the act (reformation) and in part to prevent others from committing a similar act (intimidation). Analogously, in the case of reward we are concerned with an incentive." (Schlick, p. 152). So, Schlick’s view of free will and responsibility is connected with punishment. He supposes that a person in responsible if the punishment for his action is able to change his behavior in the future. So, his determinism differs a little from that of Blatchford. In his point of view, "we are trying to discover who is ultimately responsible" (D'Angelo, p. 37). So, he thinks that moral responsibility is not derived from heredity and environment. But what is the source of free will and moral responsibility? Schlick doesn’t give any unequivocal answer to this question. I think that moral responsibility depends on the scale of free will of a person and his attitude to the actions of other persons. In other words, our behaviour is the result of both our heredity and nature, and some outside factors which depend on our relation to other persons’