Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of Adolf Hitler
Notions of good and evil
Adolf hitler impact on germany
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of Adolf Hitler
The Psychology of Evil: Situated Character Transformations
Evil is a much studied by psychologist as is the concept of goodness. One is often studied in contrast with the other. Some researchers believe we are born either good or evil. Others believe that the nature of good and evil can be changed. Three main understandings of the concept of good and evil come under the listings of Dispositional, Situational, and Systemic.
Those characteristics of dispositions are that of genetic makeup, personality traits, character, and free will. Those characteristics of situation come from the environment such as living in poverty. Systematic types of influences come in the form of leaders and or people of authority. The purpose of the research is to
…show more content…
Zimbardo shows logos (logic and order) in his studies by proving that if a bad situation can bring out the worst in people, it can also bring out the best. He illustrates also logos through specifics and statistics he gives through his studies. Zimbardo creates ethos (capability) by explaining how a situation affects a person. In the Stanford Prison Experiment it was concluded that people will readily conform to social roles that they are expected to play, especially if the roles are as strongly stereotyped as with the prison guard. The “prison” environment was an important factor in creating the guards’ brutal behavior (none of the students who acted as guards showed sadistic tendencies before the study.) Therefore the findings supported the situation explanation of behavior rather than the dispositional on. These findings have also been applied to the incident of prisoner abuse in Abu …show more content…
This involves the influence that people in power have over the actions of others and the influence they have over the environment of the people. They are often referred to as the “barrel makers” or the power elite. The power elite include those involved in government, the military, and even the mafia. These people often work in a quiet, silent way to influence the actions of people. The influence often comes in the form of advertising and propaganda using the emotions of fear and hate to motivate people. Hitler and his killing of the Jews during World War II is one of the best examples of this as is genocide in
By looking at good and evil in human nature in “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell, one can see that both good and evil is in everyone which is important because what makes us more good or evil is created through experiences.
He explores a multitude of concepts that revolves around the effects of situational factor on the behavior for an individual or group. In particular, a theory I wanted to explore is Zimbardo’s view on power and the impact of systematic structure. For instance, in Chapter 10, Zimbardo writes that “Power is a concern when people either have a lot of it and need to maintain it or when they have not much power and want to get more. However, power itself becomes a goal for many because of all the resources at the disposal of the powerful” (Zimbardo). In accordance to this view, power is desired by many, and often results in cases of struggles for power. In the instance of the Stanford Prison Experiment ,the struggle for power can be illustrated in the guard’s abusive behavior in order to establish and maintain power, and the prisoner’s rebellion as means to fight back against mistreatment. Beyond the scope of the experiment, an example of power can be seen in the monopoly of the pharmaceutical industry on the cost of prescription drugs. Many pharmaceutical companies create a monopoly on the basis of patent laws over specific drugs. Subsequently, these companies are able to set high prices in order to maximize profit margins. While this may be beneficial for the pharmaceutical industry, patients are
Every participant came from a relatively good background, with a college education, a clean legal record, and strong community ties because Zimbardo hypothesized that a good person could perform evil acts if they were given the opportunity. In the Stanford Prison experiment, Zimbardo’s hypothesis was reflected very clearly. The guards did absolutely terrible things to the prisoners, but in the end, the guards were good people, the situation stimulated bad ideas and evil
The lines that define good and evil are not written in black and white; these lines tend to blur into many shades of grey allowing good and evil to intermingle with each another in a single human being. Man is not inherently good or evil but they are born innocent without any values or sense of morality until people impart their philosophies of life to them. In the words of John Locke:
In this study Zimbardo chose 21 participants from a pool of 75, all male college students, screened prior for mental illness, and paid $15 per day. He then gave roles. One being a prisoner and the other being a prison guard, there were 3 guards per 8 hour shift, and 9 total prisoners. Shortly after the prisoners were arrested from their homes they were taken to the local police station, booked, processed, given proper prison attire and issued numbers for identification. Before the study, Zimbardo concocted a prison setting in the basement of a Stanford building. It was as authentic as possible to the barred doors and plain white walls. The guards were also given proper guard attire minus guns. Shortly after starting the experiment the guards and prisoners starting naturally assuming their roles, Zimbardo had intended on the experiment lasting a fortnight. Within 36 hours one prisoner had to be released due to erratic behavior. This may have stemmed from the sadistic nature the guards had adopted rather quickly, dehumanizing the prisoners through verbal, physical, and mental abuse. The prisoners also assumed their own roles rather efficiently as well. They started to rat on the other prisoners, told stories to each other about the guards, and placated the orders from the guards. After deindividuaiton occurred from the prisoners it was not long the experiment completely broke down ethically. Zimbardo, who watched through cameras in an observation type room (warden), had to put an end to the experiment long before then he intended
In this article two experiments were mentioned; the Milgram's Experiment and the Stanford Experiment supporting that “people conform passively and unthinkingly to both the instructions and the roles that authorities provide, however malevolent these may be”. However, recently, the consensus of the two experiments had been challenged by the work of social identity theorizing. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in 1971 by Zimbardo. This experiment included a group of students who were “randomly assigned to be either guards or prisoners”. It was conducted in a mock prison at the Stanford Psychology Department. Prisoners were abused, humiliated, and undergone psychological torture. In the experiment the guards played a very authoritarian
Milgram and Zimbardo are classified in the same category as behaviorists. Although they are locked in the same category, they are famously known for very different experiments that have somewhat of the same idea. Zimbardo is widely known for his Stanford prison experiment, while Milgram is known for obedience to authority. The goal of both experiments was to prove like Haney has said that evil is most generally generated through evil situations. Zimbardo and Milgram’s experiments are examples of Psychological situationism, which is pretty important in the work of social psychology. Salamucha finds that Milgram and Zimbardo’s work demonstrates that, sometimes, the power of situations can be overpowering.
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading ro...
Subjects became so entranced in these roles that the guards started to behave as if they really were the guards of a true prison. Zimbardo had told them to think of themselves in this way and it led to the guards mentally abusing the prisoners with their cruel and degrading routines. In Romesh Ra...
In Abu Ghraib, the prisoners’ faces were covered with hoods and the prison was covered up with walls that made the prison an island where morality was no longer there due to the three traits that the soldier went through. To understand how individuals can kill innocent children, women, men, and elders, Philip G. Zimbardo did The Stanford prison experiment. In the book, Zimbardo highlighted three psychological truths. The first is that the world is full of both evil and good, the barrier between the two is absorbent, and angels and devils can switch.
This research paper with discuss how an inherently “good” person can under the right circumstances turn “evil” and the psychological effects behind the change. To understand how a person can cross the proverbial line from good to evil; evil itself must be given a definition. The word evil has been an overarching term to describe anything from biblical aspects to natural disasters, even to describe the human condition. For this paper the human aspect of evil will be solely focused on. Oxford dictionary describes evil as “profoundly immoral and malevolent.” To understand this further the philosopher Peter Dews Author of “The idea of Evil” writes “Basic notions of offence and punishment, of transgression and forgiveness, seem to lose their grip in the face of profound, far reaching desecrations of the human. For those kinds of crimes, “evil” is still the only word we’ve got.” (12) Through this research paper Ethics of these experiments will not be discussed. Each of these experiments in present day are considered unethical however, they served their purpose in finding what psychological aspects contribute to evil in a given individual.
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
An experiment by Zimbardo provided insight on how a regular person changes roles when placed within a specific social setting. The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted by Zimbardo strictly on a volunteer basis “to study the process by which prisoners and guards ”learn” to become compliant and authoritarian (732).” The study was intended to be done over a two week period however the volunteers became so caught up in being a prisoner or a guard that it was actually cut short. Both prisoners and guards jumped immediately into the roles given. The guards set out to prove their superiority and the prisoners after a brief attempt to overthrow the guards fell into obedience. Guard A originally states that he is a “pacifist and nonaggressive”, but by day three he portrays just the characteristics he claims to have none of (Zimbardo 741). The guards in the experiment were told to keep the prisoners in-line, they did so to their own accord. The prisoners in the experiment also in the end gave in to the rules of the authoritarian figures. Both the guards and the prisoners did what they felt they needed to do to survive throughout the experiment. So even though t...
Phillip Pullman, a British author, once wrote, “I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are”(goodreads.com). Pullman’s quotation on the actions of man being the source of good and evil closely relate to morality, principles regarding the distinction of right and wrong or a person’s values. The question of what human morality truly is has been pondered by philosophers, common folk, and writers for thousands of years. However, sometimes a person’s ethics are unclear; he or she are not wholly good or bad but, rather, morally ambiguous.
This experiment gathered twenty-one young men and assigned half of them to be “prisoners” and the other half to be “guards”. Simply put, the point of the experiment was to simulate a prison and observe how the setting and the given roles affected the behavior of the young men. The men who were given the roles of guard were given a position of authority and acted accordingly. This alone strongly influenced the behavior of both the guards and the prisoners. The guards had a sense of entitlement, control, and power, while the prisoners had a feeling of resentment and rebellion. Social pressure also played a crucial role in the experiment. Many of the guards began to exploit their power by abusing, brutalizing, and dehumanizing the prisoners. Some of the other guards felt wrong about this abuse, but did nothing to put an end to it. Finally, the situation and setting of the experiment immensely altered the conduct of both the prisoners and guards. The setting of being in a prison caused many of the volunteers to act in ways that they may have normally not. Even though the setting of being in a prison was essentially pretend, the volunteers accepted the roles they were given and acted as if it was all a reality. The prisoners genuinely behaved as if they were indeed real prisoners, and the guards treated them likewise. The situation these volunteers