Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The debate over good and evil
Discussion on the problem of evil
Literature review on evil
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The debate over good and evil
Since the conception of sin itself, humans have debated the root of evil. Seemingly universal, malevolence has lurked in the darkest corners of the human psyche and made itself known to any that ever have walked the Earth. For such a ubiquitous concept, however, there remains little consensus as to why there is evil, how it came to be, and what, precisely, its nature is. Searching for answers that lend hope to these questions, people have tended towards the belief that while humans have both good and evil within them, good ultimately prevails. Although many choose to believe that the rewards of good outweigh the price of evil, the converse often proves true due to internal motivation and external circumstance. Individual corruption wrought …show more content…
Those part of a group more readily adopt accepted, uniform traits than individuals do, resulting in an increased likelihood of situational violence. J.M. Darley makes a compelling case for this theory when writing on the link between social circumstance and evil:
“When one probes behind evil actions, one normally finds not an evil individual viciously forwarding diabolical schemes but instead ordinary individuals who have done acts of evil because they were caught up in complex social forces.” (qtd. in Berkowitz 247)
Paired with unfamiliar situations, these social forces possess the capability to unbalance people enough to allow for the subversion of personal convictions. With the dissolution of these convictions, then, individuals are more easily coerced into evil acts and given greater opportunity to contradict the innate goodness that they possess. As personal morals are suppressed, the darker nature of humans is allowed to hurt; wickedness, to haunt; viciousness, to
…show more content…
Although representing the extreme of society, these criminals harm others for the same core reason that children verbally ridicule their peers: the desire for power. While writing on the potential causes for violence, Sharon Begley notes that murderers “may be trying to exercise power over a world they believe has left them powerless” (43). When psychologically pushed to extremes, people retaliate by attempting to assert their own self-reliance, their personal power over themselves. Although powerlessness is not the sole cause for mass murder, it does play a role in a considerable number of cases. As individuals find themselves lacking a possession of themselves, they turn to external means to stabilize themselves, resulting sometimes in incomprehensible acts of evil to those who possess self-composure or ignore the root of evil
... show that criminality and “evil” are not that different, as we tend to define them, but normal human responses that merely become amplified and find a destructive outlet.
Crime and deviant behavior surprisingly helps increase “social activity” among various different people within a society. Therefore, crime and deviant behavior brings “people together in a common posture of anger and indignation…when these people come together to express their outrage over the offense…they develop a tighter sense of solidarity than existed earlier” (Erikson 4). For example, in the Steven Avery case, the people of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, all had very strong feelings of Steven Avery and his family, and as a result they were seen as deviant people in their own hometown. Those feelings towards him, and his family, would be a critical factor when he was accused of the horrendous crime (Making). Based on their feelings towards the Avery family, the society in which he lived developed the overall concept of us versus them (Erikson 11). Therefore, another concept that arises as a result of crime and deviant behavior is public temper, which is described as a “mutual group feeling” (Erikson
An Analysis of Peter van Inwagen’s The Magnitude, Duration, and Distribution of Evil: a Theodicy
The two theories that are being analyzed in this paper are Ronald Akers’ Social Learning Theory and Travis Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory. Hirschi's social bonding theory is one of many control theories which all take on the task of explaining the core cause of crime; however, this particular theory seems to be the most popular and able to stand the test of time. The Social Bond theory contains four elements that explain what criminals lack that causes them to be more prone to illegal activity, these elements are attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. On the other end of the spectrum is Akers’ Social Learning Theory, which attempts to explain the correlation between and individual's social environment and their behavior depending on what is praised or punished in an individual's specific social organization. (Walsh & Hemmens)
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).
"Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance." Sociological Theories To Explain Deviance. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Dec. 2013. .
Many people have different views on the moral subject of good and evil or human nature. It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be. Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
the dark side of human nature is rooted deeply within a person no matter how hard they try
What drives people to act in an improper way, is not evil, but rather a lack of empathy hardwired into their brain. When a
When people realize that good and evil are just points of view that are placed on other people and actions, it is possible to transcend these superficial roles. Since it is people who create the meaning of evil, it cannot be said that people are evil, or are born evil, because not only is that a perspective that is assumed onto others, which will change with different cultures, societies, and eras, but the very same acts may appear to be both good and evil, depending on the perspective in which the acts are seen. Ultimately, it is the individual’s responsibility to decide for himself the effects of his actions on himself and others.
Criminal behavior is adapted through exuded actions of significant others (Schram & Tibbetts, 2014, p.217). Criminals are not born, they are created. Both nonverbal and verbal communication is pivotal within interaction that influences criminal behavior, along with personal groups. Being that adolescents are easily molded, it is very common that individuals can easily be coerced into participating in deviant activities. If individuals see the benefits of their peers stealing without consequences or repercussions, would it be surprising if they began to steal as well? They are persuaded in the direction of motives that seem favorable CITE 4. These principles also correlate with the crime of murder. If the media broadcasts countless stories of people who commit murder with the justification of self-defense, it is logical to assume that individuals will begin to use that claim. Since the George Zimmerman case surfaced, there have been countless killings of unarmed minority teenage
Every human is born with the potential to be inherently evil. Whether they choose this path or not depends on the influences of the outside world. We can see an example of how this is true from the book, Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Although all of the boys in the novel start out as innocent choirboys, they show their true form of evil when they are put in a dire situation. The boys no longer become friends to one another, instead they try to kill animals and even each other for the pure enjoyment of it. Humans are born evil and have the intent of doing violent and harmful things as evident by; the world’s history, violence as a source of entertainment, constant wars, and bullies, both cyber and physical.
Patricia Highsmith’s short story, “Something the Cat Dragged In,” provides various examples of human nature when influenced by evil as it occurs by ordinary people. These situations can be analyzed through Philip Zimbardo’s video, “Psychology of Evil,” and Wendell Bell’s article, “Who is Really Evil?” Their theories further relate to Patrik Jonsson’s article “Rich Kid Gets Probation for Drunk-Driving Deaths. His Defense? ‘Affluenza’.” Wendell Bell defines evil as “Human actions or inactions that harm other people” (Bell 55 C1-2). Bell expresses two categories of evil behavior: idealistic evil and instrumental evil. Idealistic evil is criminal actions that are committed because the perpetrator believes they are right, thus, religious extremism
The following analysis deals with the nature and source of evil and whether, given our innate motives and moral obligation, we willingly choose to succumb to our desires or are slaves of our passion. From this argument, I intend to show that our human nature requires that we play into our desires in order to affirm our free will. This is not to say that our desires are necessarily evil, but quite the opposite. In some sense, whatever people actually want has some relative value to them, and that all wanted things contain some good. But given that there are so many such goods and a whole spectrum of varying arrangements among them, that there is no way we can conceive anything as embodying an overall good just because it is to some degree wanted by one or a group of persons. In this light, there arises conflict which can only be resolved by a priority system defined by a code, maybe of moral foundations, which allows us to analyze the complexities of human motivation. I do not intend to set down the boundaries of such a notion, nor do I want to answer whether it benefits one to lead a morally good life, but rather want to find out how the constructs of good and evil affect our freedom to choose.