Factors that Contribute to Evil Doing
In your view, what is the most important factor that contributes to evil doing and why? What examples from the readings can you find to support your views? Use at least four of the following authors: Arendt, Brecht, Conrad, Engels, Foucault, Freud, Lewis, Orwell, or Sontag.
Throughout the history of humanity, humans have committed inconceivable and unthinkable acts of cruelty towards one another. From the brutal wars during the times of the ancient Greeks and Romans, to the modern area of ethnic cleansing and genocide one cannot help but wonder what is the root cause of this evil. Unthinkable numbers of human life has been lost in every corner of the world from the genocides in Armenia and Nazi Germany to the guerilla wars in Vietnam and Cambodia and presently to the devastating conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sudan. Do humans do these unthinkable things to each other because there is something innately evil within each one of us? Is humanity really doomed to the world that philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed as being “solitary, nasty, brutish and short” or is humanity simply suffering from the effects of a greater factor or power that could contribute to this commission of evil in the world? While a definitive answer to this question may never be possible to obtain, after examining the works of several authors it is clear that across the many differing contexts in which evil is committed certain commonalities exist which contribute to the commission of evil doing. From the writings of Hannah Arendt and George Orwell on the evils of imperialism, to the writings of Foucault on the evil of biopolitics, and finally to the modern day horrors of the abuse of prisoners a...
... middle of paper ...
...tor to evil in the modern world will we begin to understand how to prevent such atrocities from occurring. Until then we will forever be not in the Hobbesian condition of perpetual war, but rather has Rousseau described man as being “born free, but everywhere in chains.”
Works Cited
- Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Inc., 1976. 123-302.
- Carlson, Elof A. The Unfit. New York: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory P, 2001.
- Foucault, Michel. "17 March 1976." Society Must be Defended. New York: 2003. 239-263.
- Lewis, Anthony. "Making Torture Legal." The New York Review, 17 June 2004: 4-6.
- Orwell, George. "Shooting an Elephant." A Collection of Essays. Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1953. 154-162.
- Sontag, Susan. "Regarding the Torture of Others." The New York Times 23 May 2004: 1-6.
Lexis Nexis. 5 Jan. 2005.
Sontag explains how, The Bush administration was shocked by the photos, but not the crime, that was happening in the images or what they depict. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld uses the word “Abuse” and “Humiliation” from the picture but felt like the torture is not used in the correct context in
The problem of evil is inescapable in this fallen world. From worldwide terror like the Holocaust to individual evils like abuse, evil touches every life. However, evil is not a creation of God, nor was it in His perfect will. As Aleksandr
The problem of evil has been categorized variously, but the major categorizations of evil entail the physical evil on the one hand, and the moral evil, on the other hand. Physical evil has been defined as the occurrence of a physical suffering and destruction that is caused by the operation of natural laws, with no involvement of the human intention in the occurrence of such events (Kremer and Latzer, 89). On the other hand, moral evil has been defined as the occurrence of events that violates the natural laws, for which humans are responsible (Kremer and Latzer, 89). In this respect, while in the physical evil there is no participation of humans, the moral evil is contributed by the involvement of the personal will and intellect in doing what naturally should not be done, or what is simply considered morally wrong.
Each person feels rivalry or competition to other humans, for the majority of their lifetime. This rivalry greatly affects our ability to understand others, and this eventually results in war, discrimination, and enmity. Children are definitely culprits for acting inhumane to each other with teasing, competition, and often hurtful remarks. Although this is the way children often act, it is in the teenage years realization, along with careful thought and consideration, brings each individual to understand wider prospects of human nature; that people coldly drive ahead for themselves alone. Man’s inhumanity1 to man is a way for people to protect themselves from having pain inflicted on them by fellow humans, and achieving their goals and desires free from interference of others.
Dershowitz, Alan. “ The Case for Torture Warrants.” The Student Writer, Barbara Clouse, McGraw Hill,2008, pp. 469-471. In the article by Alan Dershowitz “ The Case for Torture Warrants,”
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
Tooley, M. (2002). The Problem of Evil. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved (2009, October 16) from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
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).
As most people would agree, the 20th century contained some of the bloodiest and most gruesome events ever recorded in history. Why do words such as Hiroshima, Rwanda, The Final Solution, A Great Leap Forward, The Great Purge and so many more spark such vivid images of blood, torture and murder in our minds? And despite those horrific images, what is it that causes us humans time and time again to commit such crimes against humanity? Those are the kinds of questions Jonathan Glover, a critically acclaimed ethics philosopher, tries to answer in the book he had spent over ten years writing, Humanity: A Moral History of the 20th Century. Through Humanity Glover tries to answer those questions in a way which will give a solution as how we can prevent ourselves from ever repeating those crimes in the future.
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
“Morality is doing right, no matter what you are told, religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right”(Mencken). What makes a person evil? What makes a society evil? Is it their looks? The way they sound? The way they think? My parents used to tell me there was a devil on one of my shoulders, and an angel on the other. I always have thought that was a ridiculous thing to think. I mean if they’re there, why can’t I see them? Every single person on this earth has made a mistake at least once. Most of which are from either trying to do the right thing, or thinking of nothing but ourselves. During world war two we have seen many examples of this, the appeasement made by Chamberlain was in an effort to try and protect his own people.
The act of torture is something my family often has discussions about, since this is one of the controversial topics my family is passionate about. Like most people, some of my family members are against it, while others are for it. Growing up hearing about these discussions, left me feeling extremely curious, however unlike my parents and other family members, I wasn’t confident and couldn’t decide whether I was for or against torture. Therefore, after finding out that one of the options we could use as our topics for our editorial was torture, I was naturally and obviously intrigued. Therefore, I decided to take the opportunity to look at torture from both perspectives in hopes of being able to finally decide whether I am for or against this controversial topic.
Everyone has personal opinions on the definition of evil, but what is the true definition? Some argue that God can only judge if an act is evil, while some say only certain things are evil. Many philosophers and authors argue over what the most accurate definition is. One psychiatrist, Dr. M. Scott Peck, suspects that Satan lives within people as a lazy and less-disciplined figure, which induces mental illness and criminal activity (Lawhon 1). Author Michael Stone defines evil as specific deeds designed to torture or murder another individual, but “the perpetrator be aware that the victim would suffer intensely, experience agony”. Who do we have to blame for these unthinkable acts of hatred? The only ones capable of them: humans. Humans are the only creatures that can feel emotions, such as shame, and have complex, rational thought (Stone 19). It is hard to tell when bad actions blur into evil acts. True evil is when that person knows what they are doing is wrong, but continue to do so because it gives them pleasure.
Whether or not humans are essentially evil or sympathetic is a question that has long left many philosophers in a state of conflict. Through the evaluation of natural human qualities, many different opinions have been formed. The so called “laws” of the world attempt to define a set of uncertain rules which are to govern society in its most raw form, dictate moral rights and wrongs, and create boundaries. Every single action can be separated into any of these three categories, depending upon the action. The Bible states that it is only through baptism that a sin may be removed from the carrier. Non-religious opinions may offer a similar opinion in a sense that humans possess the capability of committing evil acts. Human beings are in constant pursuit of their basic necessities and they are without limits to what they will do to obtain them. Since humans are individualistically driven, the ultimate desires are ones for pleasure, comfort, and contact. These can usually be found in the limits of a community environment. Our desires cross paths, since the desire of sensual experiences and close human contact in the form of community correspond with the desire for individualistic advancement and success. Competition causes holes within society, and gives rise to upper and lower classes. This causes the gap between the rich and those living in means of poverty. A truly selfless society, and one without evil would share the wealth equally, creating a level playing field for all those in the community, yet this is not the case. Friction among the classes of people results in corruption, jealousy, crime, and other small offenses. Living in a community requires trust and faith in the overall nature of others to do the right th...