Matthew Krugman Mrs. Giger EE 10 May 2014 What psychological influences contribute to an inherently good person to turn evil? Introduction This research paper with discuss how an inherently “good” person can under the right circumstances turn “evil” and the psychological effects behind the change. To understand how a person can cross the proverbial line from good to evil; evil itself must be given a definition. The word evil has been an overarching term to describe anything from biblical aspects to natural disasters, even to describe the human condition. For this paper the human aspect of evil will be solely focused on. Oxford dictionary describes evil as “profoundly immoral and malevolent.” To understand this further the philosopher Peter Dews Author of “The idea of Evil” writes “Basic notions of offence and punishment, of transgression and forgiveness, seem to lose their grip in the face of profound, far reaching desecrations of the human. For those kinds of crimes, “evil” is still the only word we’ve got.” (12) Through this research paper Ethics of these experiments will not be discussed. Each of these experiments in present day are considered unethical however, they served their purpose in finding what psychological aspects contribute to evil in a given individual. Milgram Obedience Experiment To get a comprehensive look at how a person can turn from good to evil multiple case studies on this subject will be discussed. The first of which will be the Milgram Obedience Experiment of 1963 conducted by Stanley Milgram a psychologist at Yale University. This experiment is based on the theory obedience through authority. Milgram created this experiment to examine the justification of the accused during World war II. Obedience t... ... middle of paper ... ...nto carrying out the orders. When other nurses were asked to discuss what they would do in a similar situation (i.e. a control group), 21 out of 22 said they would not comply with the order. Hofling concludes that people are very unwilling to question supposed ‘authority’, even when they might have good reason to as well as are willing to follow authority blindly even against their better judgment and rules in place (Mcleod 2008). Yale Prison experiment Yale psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 decided to take these experiments one step further, to put a normal person into a position of power to see how they would treat another human. In 1973 Zimbardo created the Yale Prison experiment which in present day would be referenced in major prison cases in the United States. To study the roles in prison life Zimbardo converted the basement of Stanford into a prison.
Claudia Card begins by questioning the difference between wrong and evil. How do we know when something crosses the line between being just wrong, to being an evil act? How does hatred and motive play a part in this? How can people psychologically maintain a sense of who they are when they have been the victims of evil? Card attempts to explain these fundamental questions using her theory of evil; the Atrocity Paradigm (Card, pg.3).
The Implications of the Stanford Prison Experiment In 1971 Dr Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment in the basement of Stanford University. This involved imprisoning nine volunteers in a mock up of Stanford prison, which was policed by nine guards (more volunteers). These guards had complete control over the prisoners. They could do anything to the prisoners, but use physical violence.
Phillip Zimbardo conducted the Stanford experiment where 24 physiologically and physically healthy males were randomly selected where half would be prisoners and the other half prisoner guards. To make the experiments as real as possible, they had the prisoner participants arrested at their homes. The experiment took place in the basement of the Stanford University into a temporary made prison.
The Stanford Prison Experiment commenced in 1973 in pursuit of Zimbardo needed to study how if a person are given a certain role, will they change their whole personality in order to fit into that specific role that they were given to. Zambrano significantly believed that personality change was due to either dispositional, things that affect personal life and make them act differently. Or situational, when surrounded by prisoners, they can have the authority to do whatever they want without having to worry about the consequences. Furthermore, it created a group of twenty-four male participants, provided them their own social role. Twelve of them being a prisoners and the other twelve prison guards, all of which were in an examination to see if they will be able to handle the stress that can be caused based upon the experiment, as well as being analysis if their personality change due to the environment or their personal problems.
Throughout all of time, the discussion of good and evil has embedded itself within human society. Through careful observation, one may witness both horrors and blessings scattered throughout the world. As many came to view it, no individual or one thing on the earth is entirely benevolent or entirely malevolent. In the drama “Romeo and Juliet” written by William Shakespeare, many characters can reflect onto our current world today. Enter Romeo, who is a very double-edged character. The balance of good and evil is easily reflected by how his personality was written.
Shirley Jackson’s short story “ The Possibility of Evil” is about a little old lady named Miss Strangeworth. She thinks she’s in charge of the town and to make sure it’s free from all evil because her grandfather built the first house on Pleasant Street. At first Miss Strangeworth is a nice little old lady, worrying about people and wondering what others are up to. Then in the middle of the story she becomes a little rude to a few of the townspeople. In the end Miss Strangeworth thought she was getting rid of the evil in the town, but in reality she was causing evil in the town by showing her true colors and being extremely mean and cruel to others. Don’t judge a book by it’s cover because people aren’t always what they seem to be.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
In the world of the living, evil is not inherent and can change or influence a person’s aspect of the world based on the community they are in. Evil is the force of things that are morally wrong and the matter of suffering, wrongdoing and misfortune (Merriam Webster). Evil is not inherent because an evil community can change or influence a person’s way of thinking, can consume people the more they are relinquished to it, and can mold a person when a person has power or feel a certain way. Furthermore, evil can be claim as not inherent from reading about Josef Mengele, Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford Prison Experiment. I will persuade my point that evil is not inherent from the sources that depicts the claim of evil.
On August 17, 1971, a team of researchers at Stanford University conducted a several day observational study to understand the psychological effects of becoming an inmate or corrections officer. Led by psychology professor Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the research team randomly assigned twenty-four male college students to play the role of a prisoner or guard in a makeshift prison that had been constructed on university grounds. Weiten (2013) defines random assignment as: “The constitution of groups in a study such that all subjects have an equal chance of being assigned to any group or condition.” Because the subjects were assigned to their individual roles by flipping a coin, Zimbardo successfully integrated random assignment into the design of his
The idea of experimentation of prison life achieved by the Stanford University students was intriguing and the results were interesting. Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo’s study due to a result of their curiosity of the reactions of subjects when placed in prisoner or prison guard roles. Their inspiration for the study was somewhat unclear; however, hypothetically reasoning was placed on determining aspects of the actual reality of incarceration. The experimenters also strived to test the theory on whether prisoners face abhorrent conditions due to their interpersonal evils, or do to the aggressive and deviant behaviors of prison guards (Haney, Banks, Zimbardo, 1973).
How exactly does the human brain work? Are humans evil by nature or are they good samaritans most, if not all, the time? As studies throughout history have shown, this is not the case. Humans are inherently evil because they are always seeking as much power as they can, revert to challenging authority and selfishness in times of peril, and become intimidated easily by “authority” figures egging them on, which is reflected in The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, as well as The Zimbardo Experiment conducted by Psychologist Phillip Zimbardo.
The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Philip Zimbardo of Stanford University. The purpose of the experiment was a landmark study of the human response to captivity, in particular, to the real world circumstances of prison life. In social psychology, this idea is known as “mundane realism”. Mundane realism refers to the ability to mirror the real world as much as possible, which is just what this study did. Twenty-four subjects were randomly assigned to play the role of "prisoner" or "guard" and they were made to conform to these roles.
Explain the metaphor that Rosenbaum uses on pp. 7-8 to explain the nature of the “categories of evil.” To what does he compare these categories? Do you find this comparison to be effective in illustrating his point? Why or why
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perptrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp.21-50). New York: Guilford press.
Analysis of Morals and Values in Harry Potter Good vs. Evil At the heart of the story there is the fight of good against evil shown through the protagonist and antagonist. At the innermost personal level, there is the struggle between the characters Harry Potter and Lord Voldemort. Harry is the epitome of good; while Voldemort is embodiment of evil. Harry is courageous, loyal, self-sacrificing, and a leader. This can be seen constantly as Harry puts himself in danger to protect others.