Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effect of character education
Religion and ethics
Ethics business and religious views
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effect of character education
From birth, we are taught important values that help us to develop into good citizens. Some individuals are raised in religious organization’s instilling good moral values into them. Some people are raised in a manner to treat others with respect, so-on and so-forth, but not everyone in this world shares the same moral values, which breaks the integrity of the individuals ethical behavioral code or pattern. In the Bible at Proverbs 13:20, it says “The one walking with the wise will become wise, the one who has dealings with the stupid will fare badly.” (NWT Bible) Why is this? Doe’s it even matter about upbringing, and how they will fare in extreme ethical decisions? My theory, that the ones you associate with on a daily basis, powerful figures individuals look up to, those with some sort of authoritative influential quality imposes on how people will make decisions. Four articles documenting the behavior of participants in controlled experiments have been dissected and used in my research.
Experiments
Good Samaritan Experiment – Lee Ross (Professor of Psychology, Stanford University) and Richard E. Nisbett (Professor of Psychology, University of Michigan)
The Good Samaritan experiment exposes the level of care an individual will offer dependent on their on time. A scenario given was of a man named John, whom comes across another man, slumped in a doorway, pleading for help. Many questions were raised about John’s upbringing, his attitude on a daily basis, membership affiliations and etc. How has John’s altruism been tested in the past? The students agreed that only with such information in hand, you could make a sensible prediction. In 1973 a similar social experiment was created and executed. Students in...
... middle of paper ...
...ruly thought he was a prisoner, which is until he was reminded that it was all an experiment; the student bounced right back up and continued the experiment. All of these experiments prove my theory correct. It was figures with authority that influenced individuals, it was groups that influenced the decisions of some, and it was associates that changed the mind of a student to a prisoner. Although the bible may be old, the information I found in that scripture is highly applicable to today. Psychological behavior should be operated by good morals, integrity, unfortunately that isn’t true, as we’re ruled by acceptance in social mediums, from small to large.
Works Cited
Stanford Prison Experiment - http://www.prisonexp.org/psychology/1
Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum (Laurence Behrens, Leonard J. Rosen)
NWT (New World Translation) Bible – Proverbs 13:20
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
In the field of psychology one of the main goals is studying and determining the behavior of individuals. It is imperative to study human’s behavior under controlled environmental settings, and how these individuals react to the stimuli around them. But it is also important to note how far is too far in the environmental settings, and is it possible for the subjects that are in the experiment able to change their own personal beliefs and conform to the people/ environment around them knowingly. There are few well-known experiments that demonstrate these changes in the personal behavior of the subjects. These being; the Stanley Milgram’s “shock experiment”, and Philip Zimbardo’s “ Stanford Prison experiment ”. These two controversial experiments
Darley and Latané conducted several experiments to achieve a goal to explain the psychology behind the bystander effect. The several dozen experiments conducted within 12 years ended with similar results. The experiments involved placing a participant either alone or with other participants and then staging an emergency scenario. Both Darley and Latané took note of the time it took the participants to respond to the emergency situation, and whether or not they took intervention measures. A frequent outcome of all the experiments was the presence of other participants prevented the participants from helping. In one experiment by Darley and Latané, subjects were positioned in three different treatment conditions. Which entailed being alone in the room, being with two other participants, and with two confederates acting as if to be normal participants. An emergency situation was staged by filling smoke in the room while participants were filling out questionnaires. The participants who were alone in the room, 75 percent reported the smoke. On the other hand, only 38 percent of participants in the room with two other individuals reported the emergency. In the case of the final group, the two confederates took notice of the smoke but ignored it, causing only 10 percent of the participants reporting the emergency (Darley
While it lacked most of the characteristics of a proper experiment, the study is a major contribution to the field of psychology and our understanding of situational forces. Hock (2012) states, “the mock prison situation was so powerful that it had morphed…into reality. [The students and experimenters] had become their roles…These roles were so powerful that individual identities dissolved to the point that the participants and experimenters had difficulty realizing just how dangerous the behaviors in the ‘Stanford Prison’ had become.” The Stanford Prison Study made major waves in 1970s understandings of why people do what they do, what makes good people do bad things, and how situational forces can have control over people’s behaviors. The Stanford Prison Experiment was a game changer in understanding human behavior and what compels or motivates our actions—is it the situation or our principles?
There has been a huge debate throughout generations of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition environmental factors such as culture, parenting, and socialization. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are very different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more about being right or wrong but being ethical is more about understanding the consequences of an action and interpreting the situation.
In 1961, Stanley Milgram, a Yale University Psychologist conducted a variety of social psychology experiments on obedience to authority figures. His experiments involved three individuals, one of them was a volunteer who played the role of the teacher, one was an actor who played the role of the student, and one was the experimenter who played the role of the authority. The teacher was instructed by the authority to administrate shocks to the student (who claimed to have a heart condition) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. The voltage of the shock would go up after every wrong answer. The experimenter would then instruct the teacher to administrate higher voltages even though pain was being imposed. The teacher would then have to make a choice between his morals and values or the choice of the authority figure. The point of the experiment was to try to comprehend just how far an individual would continue when being ordered by an individual in a trench coat to electrically shock another human being for getting questions incorrect. The experiment consisted of administrating pain to different people and proved that ordinary people will obey people with authority. Some of the various reasons are that the experimenter was wearing a trench coat, fear of the consequences for not cooperating, the experiments were conducted in Yale University a place of prestige, and the authority f...
Also, social psychologists have long been concerned in when and why some individuals help others while some decline to help. Although the evidence for the inhibitory effect confounding, there are also counter-examples which exemplifies individuals demonstrating pro-social behavior in the presence of others. Hence, while the bystander effect can have a negative impact on prosocial behavior, altruism and heroism, researchers have identified factors that can help people overcome this predisposition and increase the probability that they will engage in helping act. Lantane and Darley (1968) proposed a five-step psychological process model to account for the bystander effect. These processes include observing that a critical situation is current, interpret the circumstance as a crisis, generate a feeling of individual obligation, believe that we have the adequate skills necessary to succeed, and finally reaching a conscious decision to render help (hellen et al )
... on whether or not harm was inflicted, if he gave enough care, the location of the experiment, the deception, and the challenge that his study did not apply to real world problems. Even though his study was challenged by Baumrind he still stood his ground and in a very direct and polite way when addressing all the points she criticized. Without this study we might have went on believing that some people we consider “bad” or “psychotic killers” could actually be the direct result of obedience.
...though the researchers weren’t looking for it, he results represent ideas that can help the bystander effect in a situation. Smaller numbers increase the percentage of realization when it comes down to an emergency. The victim, if cohesive, actually plays a big role in causing the bystander effect as well. When a victim is unable to verbally communicate with bystanders, it lessens the chance of help. If a victim is capable of communicating, the help given could be more efficient. This is because it can help break the diffusion of responsibility. A victim looking a bystander directly in the eyes can even spark a quicker reaction in them. These are all ideas that psychologists still study today, and many even consider learning about this phenomenon a requirement.
Before a case can be made for the causes of altruism, altruism itself must first be defined. Most leading psychologists agree that the definition of altruism is “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare.” (Batson, 1981). The only way for a person to be truly altruistic is if their intent is to help the community before themselves. However, the only thing humans can see is the actions themselves, and so, selfish intent may seem the same as altruistic intent. Alas, the only way that altruism can be judged is if the intent is obvious. Through that, we must conclude that only certain intents can be defined as altruistic, and as intent stemming from nature benefits the group while other intent benefits yourself, only actions caused by nature are truly altruistic.
In philosophy, there are many different views regarding what is thought to constitute ethical behavior. Among them are the cultural relativist, utilitarian, and Kantian. Given a situation where someone must choose to either kill one person out of thirty so that the others could live or let all thirty people die in order to maintain their moral duty, the distinctive philosophical views would lead to varying responses. They contribute opposing ideas on what the right decision is. Generally, these three ethical theories have the power to influence what happens next.
One may assume that in an emergency situation the more people present, the more likely a person is to receive help. This has however, been disproven in multiple experiments. This social phenomenon, known as the bystander effect, has been studied since the late 1960’s. The diffusion of responsibility is often used to explain the bystander effect- a social phenomenon in which people become less likely to offer assistance to someone in an emergency when there are other people present (1). Researches Latane and Darley first became interested in the effect of the diffusion of responsibility in the 1960’s, after the death of Kitty Genovese who was murdered outside of her apartment while 38 people made no effort to help her.
Bystander effect refers to the instance in which there is an emergency and people witnessing don’t respond when there are others around witnessing the same event. This happens because of pluralistic ignorance which is when people assume that there is nothing wrong because others surrounding them don’t look concerned. Two researchers, Latan and Darley, conducted an experiment to further study the bystander effect. In this experiment, Latan and Darley took multiple college students and one at a time, put them into cubicles. In a cubicle next to them there would be a recording device producing noises emulating distress noises in the form of choking. Eighty five percent of the students went to help; this is not an alarming number. The surprising
Many people have different views of what ethical behavior is. Ethical behavior is defined as “Acting in ways consistent with what society and individuals typically think are good values. Ethical behavior tends to be good for business and involves demonstrating respect for key moral principles that include honesty, fairness, equality, dignity, diversity and individual rights (Ethical behavior, 2016).” In this paper, I explored ethical decision making with examples. In addition, I discuss how ethical decision making benefits from a Christian worldview.