1. The Lucifer Effect is concocted Zimbardo is mainly about why “good” people turn “evil” or do horrifying things. The term evil means “behaving in a manner that harms, dehumanizes or demeans innocent others” (Zimbardo 146) the theory discusses whether humans are naturally evil (fixed) or is it their environment that fuels them to do things that are not in their nature. Zimbardo acknowledges that the very top creates the environments that manage the system who deflect the evil on to others to disregard their hand in creating the environment.
2. Through his concept of the Lucifer Effect, Zimbardo emphasizes the parallels between his earlier work on the Stanford Prison and horrors at Abu Ghraib Prison (and crimes against humanity). What are
…show more content…
The parallels between the Stanford Prison and Abu Ghirab Prison are strong because in both cases because in both cases, people were being humiliated, degraded and dehumanized. Zimbaro explain that in his experiment the scenes from the Abu Ghirab Prison were “interchangeable”. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, healthy men who had clean backgrounds participated in the experiment ad ended up behaving in a way that they themselves could not predict. The similarities also occurred in the Ghirab Prison when the members of the military who lacked a criminal record, and passed the military psychological tests were now found guilty of “dehumanizing, demeaning, innocent” others in a manner that we know as “evil”. For example, when the US soldiers who were seen as good members dehumanized the Arab civilians, the environment had othered them in their minds like what occurred in the video of the Stanford Experiment when the student who became a guard mentioned that he had to speak to himself and think of the prisoners as inferior. For the US guards to treat the civilians so terribly, they must have been dehumanized in their minds. Zimbardo explains that the behavior is easily done when an environment and enemy is created and points out that it is often time media does this through images and propaganda. In the second part of the essay, he mentions that certain behaviors. I do agree with most of what Zimbardo says but I do not believe that all people might find themselves behaving
After arguing the failure of prisons, Mendieta establishes his agreement with Davis’ anti-prison rhetoric without introducing the author, her book, or other various abolitionist efforts, “I will also argue that Davis’s work is perhaps one of the best philosophical as well as political responses to the expansion of the prison system...” (Mendieta 293). The article’s author also assumes that readers are familiar with specific torture tactics used on prisoners,“...the United States is facing one of its most devastating moral and political debacles in its history with the disclosures of torture at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other such prisons…” (293). Mendieta’s act of assuming that readers will already be familiar with Angela Davis and her work, as well as the specific methods of torture used by certain prisons, may cause readers to feel lost while reading the
My opposition to torture fall under the beliefs of the absolutist Kant, who states that no matter what the circumstance is, something that is wrong will always be wrong (Boothe 2006, 12). Therefore, concerning the issue of torture, in this world or any other world, torture is immoral. In this paper, I will employ the ethical frameworks of virtue, rights, and fairness to argue against torture when viewed from the perspective of the victim, the torturer, and any outside source. Furthermore, I will dismantle the ticking-bomb scenario by deducing the incapability to achieve full certainty deeming these scenarios unrealistic.
Situational effects and personality come into conflict when discussing behavior. Personality is someone’s “usual pattern of behavior, feelings, and thoughts” (Twenge, 2017, p.20). It remains constant throughout different situations, but some situations can be stressful enough to make a person act out of character. The transition between a person’s normal personality and behavior to a more evil, sinister behavior fascinates a man named Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the infamous Zimbardo Prison Experiment, or Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Zimbardo is an American psychologist at Stanford University and the mastermind behind the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (The Story).
Neither one of the circumstances was ethical at any point and had been publicized by the media for its explicit type of interrogation methods as well as sadistic behavior. In particular, Phil Zimbardo has argued that the study shows that strong situational forces can override individual differences in personality and moral values. In Abu Ghraib, soldiers were inserted into the role of prison guards and began to sadistically torment prisoners there and at other detention sites in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many of the specific acts of humiliation were similar to those that transpired in the Stanford Prison Experiment, according to Zimbardo. This theory has been challenged by allegations by Seymour Hersh, in the New Yorker, that these soldiers were in fact acting under direct orders of their superiors as part of a top secret Pentagon intelligence gathering program authorized by Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
The United States invasion of Iraq in 2003 was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by US Forces, but it seemed like freedom was the last thing on their minds. Abu Ghraib prison was an occupied Iraqi prison where the US Army held mass incarcerations and sponsored inmate torture. 2007 marked the year that a documentary titled “Ghosts of Abu Ghraib” was produced by HBO and directed by Rory Kennedy. This documentary showed the abuses and injustices inured to the Iraqi prisoners at the hands of the United States Soldiers. Although the guards at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex had personal reservations against the treatment of the prisoners, they were manipulated into authoritarianism by their overzealous obedience.
It pains me to say that I will not have the satisfaction of giving each and every one of those people who escaped or not the credit and appraisal that they so dutifully deserve. No, in this essay I will be focusing on three people, each with their own hardships and their own “imprisonments”, whether those “imprisonments” were literal or not; they deserve to be appraised. All three of these people contrast against each other greatly but, at the same time have immense comparisons. For example, all three of these people are minorities but, only two of them are male.
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
People are issued out.’ …, The issue isn’t what we want to write about. Everybody knows an injustice was done. How many know what actually went on inside?” (Foreword, Farewell to Manzanar).
Stephen Chapman’s essay “The Prisoner’s Dilemma,” compares two different cultures and their ideologies with regards to justice and punishment. Chapman’s topic can definitely be seen as controversial as it questions the morality of both foreign and western societies justice systems. If one is not reading and thinking objectively it can strike a mine is better mindset within the reader in the first page of his argument. The viewpoint he takes is not one that is commonly displayed nor talked about. Stephen Chapman’s claim in the essay is essentially that western societies prison system is a more cruel form of punishment than middle eastern practices of physical harm.
This experiment was conducted in Stanford University by Dr. Zimbardo. During this two week long session, Dr. Zimbardo had several volunteers agree to act as prisoners and as prison guards. The prisoners were told to wait in their houses while the guards were to set up the mock prison, a tactic used by Dr. Zimbardo to make them fit into their roles more. The official police apprehended the students assigned to the role of prisoner from their homes, took mug shots, fingerprinted them, and gave them dirty prison uniforms. The guards were given clean guard uniforms, sunglasses, and billy clubs borrowed from the police.
They also concluded that the environment of the prison played a vital role in the way the guards treated the prisoners. It is believed that this experiment changed the way some U.S. prisons are
Therefore it can be said that power gives evil the need to feed off the fear of others, it drives them to suppress their emotions and mindset providing them the opportunity to commit such acts that would previously be considered “sins”. Mr. Zimbardo’s theory on the Lucifer effect can been seen in action through the entire movie. The lucifer effect begins to tell us a couple of reasons as to why sometimes good eggs can turn bad. One of those reasons being authority, while the other relies on dehumanization, or the process of stopping to see someone as fully human. The process of dehumanization can be said to eliminate guilt or human feelings toward a misdeed, it takes away need to be moral and do good evil and opens the dam for the evil lurking to lash out.
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,
In Dr. Philip Zimbardo’s psychology experiment called the Stanford prison experiment, he came to realization without rules and structure of the guards, they can take matters into their own hands and do whatever they want. The prisoners were deindividualized and were just called by their number on their uniform. The cruel and unusual punishments that the guards inflicted got too out of hand would cause the prisoners to have a mental breakdown and wouldn 't be able to finish the experiment. Zimbardo called this the lucifer effect. In William Golding’s novel “Lord of the Flies” and Sheryl St. Germain’s poem “In the Garden of Eden,” Lucifer and evil are also temptations, which eventually creates the fall of man.
The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Journey Into Authoritarian Leadership Over the years, scientists, psychologists, and doctors have used social experiments to further their understanding of our surroundings. Social experiments are studies of the human mind and psyche through various environments. In this case, a social experiment called the Stanford Prison Experiment is what opened new doors for the comprehension of human behavior, how we act when we are in power, as well as offered a glimpse into the flaws in our legal system. This experiment was conducted in 1971 in Palo Alto, California.