There is a system that can pre-determine the human behaviour and their place in society, but there are those who provide argument that this method of assessing the human nature of any individual is not correct. The characters from the actual squad in the film Suicide Squad (2016) are described as criminals because of biological determinism, regardless of the external factors. However, this is not an entirely correct way of labelling these people because biological determinism can also classify others in a way that creates inequality, but several scientific research has favoured biological determinism. This is because certain environmental circumstances can affect groups of individuals, which would be unfair because this would establish a view …show more content…
Adolf Herschl and Roger A. Sedio (1996) argue that human nature is not preordained and can vary due to people growing up in very different circumstances. This means that circumstances people live in can affect their way of presenting themselves, which is evident with Killer Croc from the film introduced by Amanda Walker,
“He looked like a monster, so they treated him like a monster, and he became a monster”
Killer Croc had developed a skin condition that had made him look unattractive to the public, so he alienated himself from society because of the physical discrimination people gave him. H. Shellae Versay and Nicola Curtin (2016) further adds that such treatment can negatively impact upon mental health and victims would find alternative ways to deal with being discriminated upon. In the film, skinned animal carcasses are dropped into his cellar from above instead of proper meals being served on plates through the door, and the design of his sewer like cellar promotes his monstrous actions. This mentality of being the monster could be a way of dealing such treatment because he did not know how to “respond to their aggression” (2014, Wenos, Trick and Williams, p. 37). There is evidence that living conditions can affect an individual’s growth in their nature, which demonstrates that not all behavioural traits are inherited.
…show more content…
There are arguments that human nature is not due to biological determinism through the evidence that is shown in suicide squad. There are various occurrences of the character’s flashback being shown that social forces affected the choices they made. Consequently, the characters were branded as criminals because of the decisions the characters had to make. However, there was an instance of a traits being passed on that were not manipulated by environmental factors. This example was observed on the basis that there were no exterior influences, and was observed on a scientific standpoint. Although there is argument that supported inherent traits being passed on, there was also many pieces of evidence that strongly suggested that people’s behaviour is matured through cultural and social
And last but not least is the villain in these movies. Most of the killers in these films are portrayed as mentally deranged and/or has some type of facial or bodily deformation and who have been traumatized at an early age. Even though these characters terrorized and murder people they have taken on the persona of anti-heroes in pop culture. Characters like Halloween’s Michael Myers, A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Freddy Krueger and Friday the 13th’s Jason Voorhees have become the reason to go see these movies. However, over time,”their familiarity and the audience’s ability to identify and sympathize with them over the protagonist made these villains less threatening (Slasher Film (5))”.
Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, the Boston Strangler, Jeffrey Dahmer. Despite the years of history that separate these names, they remain indelibly preserved within our collective societal consciousness because of the massively violent and calculated nature of their crimes. Serial killers, both men and women, represent social monstrosities of the most terrifying variety. They are human predators, cannibals in a figurative and, often, literal sense, and are therefore uniquely subversive to society's carefully constructed behavioral tenets. They frighten because they are human in form but without the social conscience that, for many, defines humanity. They capture the public eye because they terrify, but also because they elicit a sort of gruesome curiosity about the human potential for evil; as Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde alleges, wickedness lies within each heart, waiting only for the proper time and impetus to break free.
However, I have taken a more compatibilist approach towards the argument of free will, determinism, and moral responsibility. I think that determinism lays the foundation for an individual to make a decision by exposing a multitude of possibilities. But, it takes free will to make the decision which in turn makes us partially responsible for our actions since we had various options at hand. I suspect that the concept that free will and determinism can coexist and oftentimes work hand in hand. Since we are predisposed to a particular body, with different DNA, and a unique mindset, I can agree that we are predetermined to think and act a certain way because of genetics and how we were raised. However, I also believe that this is not the only force at hand whenever people make decisions. As we grow and experience the world, we are faced with situations that have us question and rearrange our perspectives and the way we think. This is where determinism comes into play. For example, a child who was taught to eat meat during their early life learns about how the meat industry functions in an Environmental Science class in high school. As a result, they decided to be a vegetarian. This causal event serves as an influence that instilled a new idea into the student. However, it takes free will to ultimately make the decision to convert because it goes against what was determined for the individual. It was their autonomous choice to convert since there were two options at hand: to change their eating habits or to remain the
I don’t believe that there will ever be a definitive answer to whether or not nature or nurture matters most when people are making decisions. But, I believe that this movie forces the watcher to rethink how they define who 's a good person and who’s not because a person 's decisions making skills can change greatly day to day making them a hero one day and a murderer the
I learned that while the Monster wanders around showing feelings of admiration and sensitivity towards others, his outward appearance alone is what causes much hatred to be inflicted onto him – and regrettably, so much hatred to be radiating out. It was clear that the creation serves as an example of a being that is not truly evil, but one that was simply trying to fit into the world. Consequently, he lashed out as a result of society responding exactly the opposite: rejecting him. As I now understood, what makes a monster is not always necessarily dependent on one’s actions, as those actions could strongly be influenced by
Today, realising that genes and environment cooperate and interact synergistically, traditional dichotomy of nature vs. nurture is commonly seen as a false dichotomy. Especially operant conditioning, i.e. the learning of the consequences of one's own behavior can lead to positive feedback loops between genetic predispositions and behavioral consequences that render the question as to cause and effect nonsensical. Positive feedback has the inherent tendency to exponentially amplify any initial small differences. For example, an at birth negligible difference between two brothers in a gene affecting IQ to a small percentage, may lead to one discovering a book the will spark his interest in reading, while the other never gets to see that book. One becomes an avid reader who loves intellectual challenges while the other never finds a real interest in books, but hangs out with his friends more often. Eventually, the reading brother may end up with highly different IQ scores in standardized tests, simply because the book loving brother has had more opportunities to train his brain. Had both brother received identical environmental input, their IQ scores would hardly differ.
...the story of the DeLacy’s, and from his own experiences the monster learned its evil ways.
Jeffery Cohen's first thesis states “the monster's body is a cultural body”. Monsters give meaning to culture. A monsters characteristics come from a culture's most deep-seated fears and fantasies. Monsters are metaphors and pure representative allegories. What a society chooses to make monstrous says a lot about that society’s people. Monsters help us express and find our darkest places, deepest fears, or creepiest thoughts. Monsters that scare us,vampires, zombies, witches, help us cope with what we dread most in life. Fear of the monstrous has brought communities and cultures together. Society is made up of different beliefs, ideas, and cultural actions. Within society there are always outcasts, people that do not fit into the norm or do not follow the status quo. Those people that do not fit in become monsters that are feared almost unanimously by the people who stick to the status quo.
In his essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies” King attempts to bring understanding to the phenomenon of the horror film genre. He states “sanity becomes a matter of degree” eluding to the theory that sanity is relative and that all humans are relatively insane. Jack the Ripper and the Cleveland Torso Murderer were the examples of humans on one extreme of the spectrum of sanity; saints represent the other safe end of the sanity spectrum. He illustrates the thought that in order for human kind to stay functionally sane there needs to be some sort of outlet for our violent “mad” thoughts. In King’s view horror movies provide a stable outlet and mental relief for innate madness. King argues that his insanity/ant civilization emotions are ingrained
Planning a robbery without anyone getting hurt. Yet many are hurt in the process. In 1959 of a small town that goes by the name of Holcomb, Kansas, Four murders were committed. These murders weren't meant to happen yet they still did. Leaving the family of Clutters killed in cold blood. All in hopes of finding $10,000 which Perry smith and Richard Hickock were wrongfully informed about. So, whether individuals are controlled by nature or nurture, Is completely based on the person and who it is. But for Perry his might be seen as nature.
The reason I would say yes is everybody got the ability to choose between something. If do not matter if it was cause by agent or it uncase everybody have some control over their action. It hard to believe that everything a person do is already determine beforehand. There are many future a person can take to by their action. An example would to a choice to rob a bank or not. If you broke and you need the cash to help the person you care about an operation you still have a choice to rob the bank or find another way. One future would be you jail if you rob the bank or you find the money another way. It hard to believe that it do not matter what happen you will rob the bank nor matter what or in jail no matter what you decide to
Society, however, is a state towards which humans have naturally evolved, and our continued existence without society is inconceivable. Thus, although determinism is argued successfully from a causal point of view, it is clearly flawed in a practical context as it fails these fundamental aspects of human life.
Mary Shelley restructured the theme of appearance and attitude in “Frankenstein” to reflect what people face today. Victims become aggressors when the level of perception impacts their livers
A monster can be characterized by an extreme deviation from the normal standards of society including an internal or external wickedness. In the case of Mary Shelley’s Creature, his appearance overwhelms those who lay eyes upon him. A mere glance can send a villager running for the hills. It was not until the Creature caught a glance of his own reflection that he understood why villagers were so afraid of him. The realization of his ghastly appearance began the monster’s journey into hopelessness. In Peter Brooks’ article he writes, “Self recognition as the ‘filthy type’ completes the mirror stage of the Monsters development.” (Brooks 377). Seeing oneself as ugly and slovenly can cast shadows on even the most compassionate of hearts.
Killers are the biggest threats to humans in society today because it could be the most original and kindest person ever who turns out to be the killer. The huge amount of monsters in our society are the killers and greedy people. A lot of people’s lives are at risk everyday just from being around these people and don't even know it. Nobody can trust a stranger,a friend, or even a family member. T.V. shows, and movies, show the killer as a psychotic person in a typical way. When it really could be anybody people come in contact with, they are just more experienced on how to deceive a common person.(The Making of a Monster Pg 2)