Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychology reflection on ethics
Psychology reflection on ethics
The psychology of evil summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Psychology reflection on ethics
Everyday choices are made. These choices eventually become part of who we are and what we stand for. The question we then ask ourselves is what makes a choice good, and what makes it bad? How does one decide between the two? What draws a definite line between a good and bad choice? We all have choices to make but what is the psychology behind these good and bad choices? Through my research I have discovered what is considered good and evil actions, the three main factors behind making a choice, and how all decision is based primarily on two different beliefs.
Good and Evil Actions
Often time’s people discover throughout life that there are different kinds of conflicts. For example, when a person has to decide between to equally pleasing desserts this is called an approach-approach conflict. How then does someone decide to make a choice? Often times as human beings we incorporate into our agency of what others would think of our decision. We then decide on the consequences of our actions and whether or not society would treat the action as socially acceptable. If the choice seems to be met as “socially acceptable” it can then be determined that the choice is a “good” choice. J. David Velleman wrote a book based off the teachings of the Philosopher Richard Brandt entitled Brandt’s Definition of “Good”. In it he defined the scope of a good choice. “The patient draws on ‘the propositions justified by publicly accessible evidence… and the principles of logic; and he repeatedly and vividly, every item of such information that stands to exert a specific effect on his desires” (Velleman 1). The quote clearly states that people base their choices according to their desires and the effects of fulfilling that desire. A few questions one must ask are: will this choice fulfill my desires, and will the consequence of following through with the action, be socially acceptable? In society the choices considered to be good are simply those that society can accept. Then what exactly is evil? In the book The Social Psychology of Good and Evil by Arthur G. Miller, it states:
“In some instances, evil refers to particularly onerous or egregious acts, such as genocide, torture, terrorism, rape, or child abuse. In these contexts, social scientists appear to use the term evil in a way similar to that of the layperson. In other cases, the term is used not solely with respect to the horrific nature of the acts but more specifically in relation to the proclivity of ordinary or ‘good’ persons to engage in a wide variety of aggressive or criminal actions” (Miller 3).
Claudia Card sees evil as “foreseeable intolerable harms produced by culpable wrong doing”, thus she builds her theory and views around this definition (Card, pg.3). She distinguishes wrongdoing and evil acts by the consequences and results of those actions, and to what extent they harmed the victim. She sees evils as actions that ruin people’s lives that achieve significant harm that causes permanent or difficult to recover from damage (Card, pg.3). However, she does make a point of differentiating evildoers from evil people, as they do not always have the purposeful intention to do the evil that they cause (Card, pg.4).
In January 2002 James Waller released the first edition of the book “Becoming Evil – How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killings.” Dr. James Waller is a professor at Keene State College in New Hampshire and is home to one of the nation’s oldest Holocaust resource centers, the Cohen Center for Genocide and Holocaust Studies. Becoming Evil uncovers the historical and modern day reasons to why people do evil and attempts to debunk common explanations for genocide and mass killings. Some of Waller’s other notable works include “Prejudice across America” and “Face to Face: The Changing State of Racism Across America.” Waller takes and in depth look at the societal, psychopathological and cultural reasons that would make a good person commit such heinous acts of evil. “What culture, society, or nation, what ideology, historical prejudice, or ethnic hatred, what psychological profile or cluster of personality traits, what unusual situation or special circumstance is to be deemed the cause of such aberrant human behavior?” (Browning/Waller) Why do humans commit genocide and mass killings?
THEME: The line between good and evil is sometimes unclear, and as a result, people often think that they are doing the right thing when it is actually the wrong action, and vice versa.
Most people want to be good and not bad, but they have the ability to be bad or how they can handle their evil side. People’s bad side can be tempting sometimes but one has the power to either hold back or give in.
“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.
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.
In other words, the kind of choice made is dependent on an individual’s values. According to Margaret McLean, the selection between good or bad is made depending on three ways. In the first case, an individual thinks all that matters are the results. As such, why not lie? The outcomes may be bad, and it will hurt people. In the second perspective, individuals are guided by the rules. Therefore, why not lie? The rules mandate the truth. In the third case, a person chooses not to lie because of his/her values. For instance, they are honest. Therefore, an individual’s decision-making process is guided by the anticipated results, rules, and character traits (McLean,
How often should an individual be confronted with those three words in a lifetime? What makes them pick one or the other? Is the right decision dependably fundamentally the ethical decision? Who chooses what is correct or off-base? These are every single significant question in this battling issue in life. Could the confidence in karma be sufficient for one to lead a "decent" moral presence? The finger is constantly pointed towards one 's self interest and one 's result of their choices. In Thomas Nagel 's paper, Right and Wrong, Nagel endeavors to clarify the distinctions and the contemplations behind good and bad choices. He makes references to individual advantages, religion, and disciplines of choice making. Nagel 's paper really characterizes manners of thinking and how individuals come to choose life decisions and pathways for their
Since the dawn of modern civilization the terms good and evil have been used to describe the world and the various things within it. Things ranging from the concepts of the Devil, to the kid the cut in front you in the lunch line in the third grade, evil can be defined in many ways, however, evil is generally defined as something that goes against a single set of moral principles that society has defined. This is not true because evil is something that an individual perceives that they believe will cause them harm and goes against their individual moral beliefs, not some universal concept accepted by everyone.
Evil is a metaphysical term used to describe the thoughts and actions of humans that are seen as morally wrong or ‘bad’. In extreme cases even a person can be labelled as overall evil, such as Adolf Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer. Previously, it has been thought that a person has the ability to choose between being ‘good’ or ‘evil’ and that they simply make this decision based upon what pleases them. Recently, however, neuroscientists have shed some light upon the physical explanations of human thought and action. In this essay I argue that evil does not exist, and that actions and thoughts previously termed ‘evil’ are in fact malfunctions of the human brain.
Good and evil can be summed up as a difference between rational and irrational thoughts, with the former being related to “good” and the ladder to “evil”. This is a view shared by Immanuel Kant and his Categorical Imperative. In the movie Schindler’s List, we are presented with two individuals, Oskar Schindler, who by the end of the movie displays characteristics of a man following rational thoughts, doing acts that he would want to become universal maxims. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Amon Goeth. Goeth follows his irrational thoughts, using the Jewish people as a means for his own ends.
the way in which we come to find out what actions are right and which
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.
An analysis of the nature of evil reveals challenges. The challenges are posed in form of questions or statements such as; if God were good, He would destroy evil; an all-powerful God would destroy evil; Evil can never be destroyed; and thus, the possible existence of such a good and powerful Being is questionable. The lifestyle of a typical Christian revolves around doing what is right and avoiding evil. Believers are expected to give assistance to others without considering their background, race, or denomination. One is expected to be a role model and act as a good example to others in the society. Christians have a big task of ensuring that they win converts for Jesus Christ. This is significant in the war against evil, and ensuring that many nonbelievers are converted through moral teachings and evangelism.
"They (Indians) are not to blame, they have not a dog's chance--we should be like them if we settled here" (184)