Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Systematic causes of war
Essay on bobo doll experiment
Essay on bobo doll experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Systematic causes of war
Albert Bandura is one of the best known social psychologists in the psychology discipline. He mainly focused on the modeling of children with the study of the bobo doll, but more recently Bandura has been studying moral disengagement and this is something that has great modern implications. Bandura (1999) defines this as “disengagement of moral self-sanctions from inhumane conduct” (p.193). To put this in my own words, it would mean your inner conscience explaining what you did was right in a particular situation, but in reality, that situation could not be morally right. You could link this idea to criminals in the criminal justice system, soldiers on the battlefield, and school bullying. Whatever scenarios you look at its to note Bandura mentions, moral disengagement happens when the wrongs are done to them and over time they begin to think it's an okay behavior (Bandura, 1999). For example, an individual named Bob lives in a rough neighbor and in order to survive, Bob does some actions that are not …show more content…
This can be connected to almost every social justice problem, like bullying, crimes throughout the world, civil wars, and etc… This can be tied back into how individuals commit serious immoral justices and can continue to live guilt free lives. Recently Bandura (2015) outlined some examples, one example that stood out to me was military drone operators, whose main job is to control unmanned planes throughout the world. And those who operate these types of aircraft think that they’re fighting for the right causes, but in some cases human error is involved and a great number of humanity issues arise. Bandura (1999), would say this is part of the moral justification mechanisms. Over the years the major news networks have begun talking about this subject and more recently a movie starring Ethan
When one turns on the television today they are made witness to all the crimes that are present in society. It is impossible to sit through thirty-five minutes of news without anger and rage becoming aroused. This is because society is bothered by infinitesimal paraphernalia. Society also believes in human rights and punishment for those who violate such rights. Yet what constitutes humanity? Ever sit there and watch the news and wonder just how far humanity reaches? When is it time to say this is a human rights violation? Every wonder when someone’s morals and ethics begin to effect their ability to do their job? Ever wonder why in every news story the “bad guy” always become caught? Ever wonder how many people on death row might not be guilt? Some of them could have even been used as scapegoats. Yet how does one become a scapegoat? Could someone out there have that much hatred and anger to blame one person for the faults of many? Is the need for blame significant? Does desire lead to more hatred and evil? What does it feel like to be blamed for something that might not be wrong, and to be put on trial knowing that the jury wants to blame someone? In society and in the United States since its founding, there has been a need to place blame. Imagine how the person being blamed would feel. Henry Wirz did not have to image it; he lived through it and died for it. Someone is always to be blamed, even if they were just following orders. Orders which can only go so far until humanity takes effect. Henry Wirz was used as a scapegoat for war crimes committed during the Civil War at Andersonville Prison, however that does not justify his acts or make him an American hero.
Guilt can be a major force or motivator that can help influence one’s decisions. Parents often use this as a tool to persuade their children. Advertisements often use this as a tool to persuade consumers. When a party inflicts guilt on another party it is usually to convince and persuade them. Guilt is also a huge tactic used for many controversial topics. The ability to persuade as stated before definitely comes in handy when some sort of bias is trying to be accomplished. In the article Mangu-Ward characterizes the cause and effect relationships which have lead to the unpopularity of plastic bags in terms of guilt.
Throughout his book, Mike Alsford provides examples of the problems many heroes are faced with, and delves into the psychology behind the choices they make in order to solve these problems. A goal for most heroes is to save the innocents while restoring balance between the powers of good and evil, which often involves defeating an enemy. The enemy is often one villain accompanied by a throng of followers - an army, slaves, disciples, and/or brainwashed specimens. Now this is where it gets tricky. The hero knows the villain cannot maintain the present state of power he/she holds without destroying innocent lives, but there is also a link that binds the villain to innocent individuals, and this link is affecting everyone connected to it. As with the conversation in the film Clerks, there is a persistent problem of differentiating the innocents from the guilty. Do we blow up an entire planet because the inhabitants are mind-controlled by an evil dictator, or do we try to break the link that is binding the masses to the one, in doing so freeing the minds of the entire population? How do we decide who is truly evil and deserving of death or who is simply being held under the control of something beyond them? Also, a general problem that arises when battling the issue of who exactly to save is that of humanity versus other lifeforms. Who is more worth saving, based on their species? Are the humans always innocent when standing up against aliens, robots, cyborgs, etc.? Is it justifiable to commit xenocide in order to preserve the human race? What makes humans more worthy of life than others? This is the "greater good" - humans against the universe or one group of humans against another so we can "save the children" - but how have we a...
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.
authors use the concept of guilt to imply the idea that guilt has the capabilities to
Everyone, at least once in their lifetime, has done something so uncharacteristic of themselves that it makes them immediately wonder, “What was I thinking?”. What is it that leads one to subconsciously do something wrong or sinful? Some refer to it as “the voice inside your head”, while others refer to it as “listening to your conscience”. The idea of the voice inside one’s head and one’s conscience have always gone hand-in-hand. However, they are quite opposite in how they affect one’s thought process. In the popular health and wellness website called the Isha Blog, Sadhguru discusses the concept of the human conscience and it’s relation to humanity and morality. In order for one to gain morality, and ultimately develop their inner conscience, they must have “compassion for all life around [them] and dispassion towards [themselves]” (Isha Blog). Only then will one be able to truly distinguish between what is right and what is wrong.
Graham, Jesse and Johnathan Haidt. 2011. The Social Psychology of Morality: Exploring the Causes of
If you are feeling guilty, you are the one who has committed an offense, and therefore you are not the party who is suffering the most—especially in the case of public causes, such as the one’s discussed by Didion and Berger.
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
People (or monsters) feel the need to be responsible for various reasons such as guilt or justice. No matter the source of it responsibility always will act as a correcting force for all of the negative impacts of actions that happen in our society. It allows consequences to be adjusted to acceptable levels and can sometimes even make the situation better than it started because of people feeling more responsible than they actually are. Without this irrational feeling that causes people to look out for others in place of themselves our society could not function as highly as it does now and social interaction would cease to work in a fair way.
Rational choice theorist says that social emotions such as guilt, shame, and anxiety are feelings or thoughts that prevent us from doing things and giving in to our temptations. These social cues helps us to place boundaries on what is right and what is wrong and what the outcome of negative delinquent behaviors may be. Not everyone has the same idea of what behavior is rational versus
Annie, a fifth-grade student in Mr. Keller's class, is being quiet and sullen for the fifth day in a row. "I just can't do this writing stuff," she finally says in an appeal to Mr. Keller. "I'm not a good student. Give me P.E. or art over this stuff any day!" If we apply Albert Bandura's social cognitive theory in her comment "I just can't do this writing stuff" how does Bandura's theory help us to understand Annie? According, the Social Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura which combines both behavioral and cognitive philosophies to form his theory of modeling, or observational learning states that human personality is an interaction between the environment and a person's psychological processes. With this interaction humans are able to control their behavior through a process known as self-regulation (Woolfolk, 2013, p. 400). He also assures that some factors like environment and personal experiences can encourage behaviors such as Annie, why? Because, in her case, it seems that Annie’s school achievement and personal interest in writing are not interacting; in addition, Annie may lack of motivation and reinforcement in her life that can be the cause of her frustration in writing. Consequently, she prefers school subjects like PE or art that she thinks, she will be successful. Woolfolk (2013) says that humans “may acquire a new skill or behavior through observation, but we may not perform that behavior until there is some motivation or incentive to do so” (p. 402). Therefore, the lack of motivation, feedback, modeling, and effort can be a few reasons why Annie seems to discourage about her writing skills.
Behavioral theories are very significant, but the social learning theory by Albert Bandura is one of the most valuable and influential theory out of them all. The social learning theory analyzes how humans learn through observing other people’s attitudes and behaviors. Adolf Hitler was the dictator of Germany and he was the founder and conductor of the Nazi Party. Accordingly, Adolf Hitler is related to the social learning theory because his actions were related with his life struggle. Many people wonder why Hitler killed so many innocent lives and the reality is that no one will ever know, but the social learning theory by Albert Bandura can help people briefly understand why humans perform cruel and inhumane behaviors. This theory does not excuse nor does it permits Hitler’s malicious behavior, but it provides a psychological view to his unnatural actions. Adolf Hitler was the main cause of World War II and the Holocaust; he was responsible for about 11 million deaths and approximately 1 million were children. During the Holocaust the Nazis focused on executing the Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and disabled people. Moreover, Hitler also conducted the concentration camps, labor camps and extermination camps. In the camps Hitler kept as prisoners anyone who acted against him in any way and he also kept Jews. The concentration camp mainly forced people to do hard labor and slowly they would die of starvation, infections or murder; in the other hand, extermination camps were used to kill an immense cluster of people instantly. Also, Hitler permitted doctors that were part of the Nazi Party to performed medical experiments to the prisoners without their consent, basically the prisoners were used as lab rats and then they ...
Conscience, in modern usage, term denoting various factors in moral experience. Thus, the recognition and acceptance of a principle of conduct as binding is called conscience. In theology and ethics, the term refers to the inner sense of right and wrong in moral choices, as well as to the satisfaction that follows action regarded as right and the dissatisfaction and remorse resulting from conduct that is considered wrong. In earlier ethical theories, conscience was regarded as a separate faculty of the mind having moral jurisdiction, either absolute or as a representative of God in the human soul.
More specifically, I believe that we are hard-wired to mold into a specific construct, those who defy it being outside the norm, yet also the one we are most inclined to follow- this structured obedience numbs us from others, ourselves, and our morals, resulting in behaviors or actions we would never perform otherwise, such as holding a person down, electrocuting them in spite of their protests. For examples we can simply look throughout history; the holocaust was a time of murder, violence, and rape, many German citizens horrified by their actions, ashamed, only after the system was abolished; the Philippine-American war, in which both sides committed heinous war crimes, had numerous men chalking it up to following orders; though it is true that many attempt to simply offset blame, the study Meyer discusses in this piece, among others, proves there is more at work than hate. Although the author might object that associating war crimes with obedience may be taking the experiments too far, I maintain that they still prove a crucial behavior that is definitely seen in soldiers: frankly, it’s trained into soldiers. Therefore, I conclude that this study reveals deep, dark traits of human nature, this obedience of humans that has lended a huge part into the atrocious miseries of this planet- but now, I must wonder- if we