Individuals whether they live in the countryside, city, or a confined place, behave according to the immediate surrounding environments. People experience various choices and problems. In most case, people derive acute sensitivity toward the environment, alerting the kinds of cues perceive the surrounding environments. While People in peaceful societies adapt moral standards, those from war situations fail to determine the nature of their responses. The reading by Malcolm Gladwell and Tim O’Brien forms two tests that focus on the topic of how individuals react to chaotic environment. Gladwell uses his essay “The Power of Context” to explain that behaviors are a functional aspect of social context. Gladwell highlights the contexts experienced …show more content…
They react abnormal to respond to a new blended environment just like the war. Individuals might ask the question that why people see the need to act normal? The perfect answer to such a question is that people see the sense of following the set standards and rules as a way to improve their daily lives. Failure to do this could mean that people will not become successful in a society. War presents a different environment that one can term it as cruel, full of blood, and lies. The balance that once existed between one city and another, or one country and another, easily breaks down. War environment makes people lose their parents, friends, and children, and families members. Consequently, such environments make people retaliate to defend their loved ones and their lives, and show patriotism to their countries. O’Brien words clearly supports above idea that “Right spills over into wrong, order blends into chaos, love into hate, ugliness into beauty, law into anarchy, civility into savagery” (324). When a situation gets out of hand such as war, then people easily turn into abnormal behaviors. The whole environment become blended, and victory of survival becomes the only thing for people. Moreover, people forget about morality or just society. The above differs from the normal societies where people get concerned …show more content…
When different situation happens, individuals find it hard to make true or false judgment. In the daily life, for example, people might find it easy to judge the action is right or wrong. Why people can make judgments? This rises from the fact that people have moral standards while societies have laws. It is possible to say that no single environment remains stable. Similarly, people cannot use a standoff to determine whether a given environment is stable or not. People that live their normal daily lives can easily use their moral standards against the societal rules to determine their behaviors. However, an environment that turns chaotic would make it harder for an individual to use moral standards and societal law to make some judgment (Boardman, Jonathan & Jeremy s69). While it is normal for an individual to think that it is wrong and unethical to cause harm, kill, or fail to save others, chaotic environment such as war makes it hard for people to restrain themselves in performance of such acts. In fact, O’Brien shows clearly how Bob Kelley decided to kill the baby buffalo while his friends watched without doing anything to restrain him at the watch of his friends who fails to feel pity for the baby buffalo (321). While the ritual remains immoral in any normal life, war environment makes people react differently. O’Brien supports above case when
... from previous experiences and bases future decisions on what they have experienced. When a person makes a decision that isn’t justified, they unknowingly change how they view future problems. If the decision has not been based in truth, it allows them a certain amount of unearned freedom to make wrong decisions, as opposed to when one make a proper decisions. It is crucial that every decision made is justified in order to keep their moral compass steady and to make the proper decisions when the choice is hard.
Malcolm Gladwell, in order to make his argument seem credible, utilizes specific writing techniques. Gladwell frequently uses anecdotes about successful individuals as examples to further strengthen his argument. Gladwell write that, “One warm, spring day in May of 2007, the Medicine Hat Tigers and the Vancouver Giants met for the Memorial Cup hockey championships in Vancouver, British Columbia” (Gladwell 15). Frequently, Gladwell starts each chapter with a story about an individual group. These stories showcase the events and lives of successful people and are followed by Gladwell’s analysis of their success. By using specific, descriptive anecdotes, Gladwell is proving the credibility of his argument. Instead of just reciting his analysis,
A man is running late to work one day when he passes by a homeless person asking for help. This man and many others usually consider this particular man to be generous, but since he is late, he ignores the homeless person and continues on his way. One can assume that if he had the time, he would have helped. Does that matter, though, seeing as in that situation, he did not in fact help? Scenarios like this supports Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett’s idea that it is the situation that influences a person’s behavior, not he or she’s individual conscience. Although a person’s individual conscience could play a part in how one behaves in a given scenario, ultimately, the “situational variable” has more impact on the actions of the person than he or she’s morals.
People will do some of the craziest things when any level of force is placed upon them. People will succumb to the pressure of doing things they had never imagined they could do. Just recently people can look at the events of the revolts in Northern Africa and the extremes the people did to over throw their governments, events at Abu Ghraib, and the recent riots in Missouri. When mass hysteria or force from others is involved people will succumb to the situation and may do things they would normally deem immoral.
Malcom Gladwell, is an author of numerous New York Times Best Sellers, who uses several techniques in his writing to clarify and support his argument. Gladwell’s techniques are using stories to appeal to the reader’s emotions. Using scientific facts and research to logically strengthen his argument. Also, writing about controversial issues to establish credibility with the readers. These techniques are found in “Offensive Play”, “Small Change”, and “Harlan, Kentucky”, works by Gladwell.
Moral Actions are comprised of an individual’s moral awareness, judgment, motivation, and character. Moral awareness is a person’s ability to understand the difference between acting ethically and doing the right thing under a given set of rules. Or simply put, the understanding of when an ethical decision needs to get made. In the case study of the LCS Commander deciding whether or not to assist the distressed crew in Chinese waters, the moral awareness of the commander will let him know that his decision is not as simple as right versus wrong. His decision will affect the lives of those in present need, and could potentially affect the lives of many more if he were to escalate the situation into international conflict. The action that ultimately gets taken depends most importantly on the Commander’s ability to judge morally. His emotions, personal experience, and ability to reason affect his moral judgment. The commander needs to understand the political environment, give his own experience the proper weight, but not over-rely on “gut emotion,” and clearly think through the
Throughout life people are always seeking something, whether it is finding out ideals, desires, lovers, and perhaps themselves. However, recognizing, fulfilling, and rising above one’s true self are the hardest things in the world because one always seems certain of him or herself and is strongly influenced by his or her surroundings. Hence, taking the time to practice experiences is a way for an individual to precisely know him or herself and actively participate in society. In the essay, “The Power of Context,” Malcolm Gladwell states that the features of one’s current social and physical environment will strongly influence his or her behaviors. Those actions that an individual conduct in response to the situation
The two extremes of our behavior, in which we may self-sacrifice, but may also take the lives of others, demonstrate our highly mixed nature. However, with the exception of “moral monsters”, most of our sinfulness rests on “unchosen evil” facilitated precisely by our human nature (Kekes 84; 66). Philosopher David Livingstone Smith identities authorization as a necessary condition for behavior contrary to our need for cooperation (127-26). When “persons in positions of authority endorse acts of violence, the perpetrator is less inclined to feel personally responsible, and therefore less guilty in performing them” (Smith 127). Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority” experiment, in which subjects delivered shocks to another person despite hearing and even seeing the suffering they were inflicting, confirms this phenomenon. When interviewed afterwards, Milgram’s subjects expressed sentiment that they did not want to continue with the experiment, but they firmly believed such decision was not up to them (Lecture 9.28.2016). Participants’ autonomy became corrupted acted in response to the powerful cultural values of loyalty, “obedience, and discipline” which often “count for more […] than individual conscience and private morality” (Gray
Everyday, humans are faced with moral or logical decisions constantly alter the universe that surrounds them. One can assume that these decisions are fabricated based on one’s knowledge or previous experiences, and not influenced by outside factors. However, independence is merely a social construct, designed to induce the feeling of supremacy over one’s actions. Similar to animals, humans live in a society where each member must fulfil a role in the community, follow a pre-established social protocol, and follow the “herd”. Any individual who deviates from the protocol, or disagrees with the general consensus, is shunned by the community and branded as an outcast. It is this common practice that influences one’s decision making process, wondering
Throughout history catastrophic decisions were made and people stood by while atrocities ensued. These studies demonstrated how maladaptive behavior could result from cognitive dissonance. Although these experiments were conducted several decades ago the results are still extremely relevant today. For example, the Stanford Prison Experiment was cited when discussing the brutalities that occurred at Abu Ghraib prison (Zimbardo, 2007). It is our responsibility as humans and as future psychologists to understand the clinical implications of these experiments to help prevent such crimes from occurring in the future. Understanding cognitive dissonance and the impact of situational factors can help the criminal justice system and psychologists understand why an individual committed a crime. More importantly, recognizing the potency of cognitive dissonance and the influence of authority and situational factors can hopefully help society take preventative measures to help avoid future Holocausts from
Malcolm Gladwell’s “Troublemakers” is an article in which he explores the way societies make generalizations. Malcolm explains how Ontario has banned pit bulls due to a boy being attacked and people viewing that one example to be enough to distinguish all pit bulls as vicious and bloodthirsty. He goes on to employ that all dogs even resembling pit bulls or that have some pit bull mixed into them have been banned as well, because anything that looks like a pit bull has now been deemed dangerous for the people in that society. Not only does Malcolm point out other ways societies generalize people, like racial profiling a terrorist, but he distinguishes how steps could have been taken to eliminate the threat of the pit bull but it seemed to just
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Once in a while, it really hits people that they don’t have to experience the world in the way they have been told to. Gladwell believes that cultural legacies are powerful forces. Cultural legacies are the customs of a family or a group of people, that is inherited through the generations. According to Malcolm Gladwell’s book, Outliers, Cultural legacies is something that’s been passed down for generations to generations. It depends on what type of legacies was passed that will affect a person. If a good legacy was passed down, someone can keep that legacy going by trying hard at keeping the legacies going. If a bad legacy was passed down; I believe that cultural legacies can be altered or changed, by good working habits, determination, and a positive mindset to succeed. Culture can affect either positively or negatively, but we have the power to turn our cultural
These factors were situations and how people 's responses might change to fit different situations. In stress, people might turn to anger or grief while during peace and serenity they might turn to happiness or joy. Every person is capable of good and evil. Parker talks about another author’s example of a German policeman during the Holocaust that once disobeyed a superior order that was deemed morally objectionable (605). Not only did Parker bring up examples in other author 's works, but a question with concern to Milgram, which explores the possibility that people tend to do things because of where they are, not just because of who they are, and we are slow to see it, often times ignoring
Yet, despite the fact that I personally believe that a some of these tragedies could be avoided if the individuals in question had taken even a moment to think critically about their actions I also do not doubt that it is difficult to turn away from the rewards of uncritical thinking. After all, rejecting uncritical thinking, especially when it is related to such concepts and shibboleths, puts an individual in an awkward position where they again have to constantly question their own motives and actions as well as the motives and actions of others. The world around them, which had previously seemed so neatly ordered and structured, suddenly becomes chaotic and jumbled. However, from this chaos emerges an