Hey classmates,
As a result of our end-of-semester book project, I have started to look at the theoretical relation between genocide and evil, as well as the debate over whether evil actually exists or not. In researching this topic, I've found that there seems to be similar opinions about the existence and connection of evil in modern times.
A common thread that seems to link various writings about evil (from those who believe in it's existence) is that "evil", while it can't be defined, can be felt, and that something can be classified as being evil. In other words, no one can say what evil is, but everyone knows it when they see it. And one of the events that is thought to be most obviously evil is genocide.
However, a conflicting aspect in the debate on evil is the various persepectives that determine, to individual groups, whether an event is in fact evil or not. To different cultures, what may be seen as an abominable act by an outsider from a different culture, might be the norm in another. Furthermore, what may be considered an evil act by one civilization may be considered an act of survival by another nation. Or the element of memory might come into play as well: a nation's or people's aggression towards another nation or people might be considered a retaliatory act, a "getting-even-of", for an act that was committed against them long ago.
For further ideas on evil and it's defintion, as well as it's relation to society, you can go to the website http://www.ourcivilisation.com/moral/moral8.htm, or if you feel like reading, I recommend "Evil: An Investigation" by Lance Morrow. (It's a little heavy, but well written and thought provoking.)
Some questions I have for everyone are:
1)Do you believe that evil exists? If so, in what sense? (A religious sense, a moral sense, etc.)
2)What makes a person evil? Are they born that way, or is it a case of nature vs. nurture?
3)Can any one event be unanimously labeled evil by the global community, or do cultural differences create boundaries that forever divide opinions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I am consistently modifying my opinion on this topic, because I do not think that evil is genetic, or that somebody is born evil, but at the same time there are acts that people commit, such as instigating a genocide, that I cannot imagine anyone with a conscience committing. So I think that sociopaths exist, and that there are people without conscience, but this is a psychological disorder more than a state of "evil." I also think that actions can be evil, and people cannot act evilly, but people cannot "be" evil, if that makes sense.
Being a Christian, I do believe in evil in the religious sense. I believe that all people have the potential and tendency for evil just as much as for good. However, I believe that "nuture" influences whether or not this evil will manifest itself in an exceptionally powerful way.
To be honest, I kind of want to pose a question about this blog and what is appropriate and not appropriate. Is it appropriate for me to reference my religion and to use its arguments and beliefs as evidence and justification for my ideas, or does religion "not belong here?" I'm having a hard time answering this question for myself without spewing lots of religious doctrine, and I'm just wondering what you guys think about what is appropriate for me to say.
I do not think evil exists. In Brain and Behavior, we learned about a concept called the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) which most people are guilty of. It is where people wrongly blame the individual and give no credit to the situation.
I don't feel in a position to judge commiters of genocide on their actions and decide if they are 'evil' or not because I do not know enough about their situation - how they grew up, the culture, and current/historical events leading up to the genocide. I think that labeling perpretrators of genocide as 'evil' is an example of FAE.
Another relevant experiment that I learned about in B&B is the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo. It questions the idea of an 'evil' person and suggests that any of us are capable of commiting 'evil.' A quick rundown of the experiment: around 20 random Stanford students were divided into groups of prison guards and prisoners. An unused portion of the campus was transformed into a 'prison' with cells and officers quarters, etc. Long story short, by the end of only 2 weeks, the prison guards were abusive and 'evil'(much like those at Abu Ghraib) and the prisoners were submissive and weak. were the students that played prison guards really evil people? or were they just like any of us and the situation led them to do 'evil' acts? The students were randomly selected, which leads us to the conclusion that we are all capable of despicable acts under the influence of extreme situations.
In response to Melanie: I personally have no problem with you bringing religion into the mix just as long as you respect the fact that not everyone believes in the same things that you do. It provides us with another perspective (and as this course emphasises, multiple perspectives are key to understanding an event)
Jordan, that's a really interesting experiment. It reminds me of the Milgram experiment too, in that it proves that individuals are capable of doing more "evil" acts than they would think. Was the experiment conducted before, after, in response to Abu Ghraib?
Melanie, I'm all for hearing the Christian point of view, because the more we can learn about different points of view, the better. You've been respectful of other people's various views so far, and I wouldn't be offended at all by hearing yours, especially sicne we're talking about different ways people interpret evil: religion is a factor in many people's interpretations.
the stanford prison was in 1971 (before the creation of the ethics board - that experiment would be a major no-no nowadays) so it was way before Abu Ghraib.
one more correction: the experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks, but was cut off after only 6 days because of the extreme reaction
This discussions reminds me of how in class we saw the video of Samantha Power who said that most people who participate in genocide have never killed, and have led normal lives up to the point of political or social unrest during a genocide, and the external motivation to participate becomes more and more. They constantly redetermine which ethical lines they're willing to cross. I do believe that there's something inherently evil about leaders who organize and pressure others into commiting a genocide. They are usually the ones who create the idea and lead the implementation of it. I find these people to be the evil ones, not the ones who are whipped into a frenzy against the targeted group.
The instances of Holocaust and Armenian Genocide denial covered in class prove that no event can be labeled universally evil. There is always a perspective to look at something which explains away or justifies people's acts.
I agree with Jordan that it is impossible to label a person as "evil" because of my lack of knowledge of WHO the person truly is, their background, culture, past experiences...etc.
However, at the same time, also as a Christian, I think that there is a certain degree of the tendency towards or the temptations towards evil, you could say, that every single human being has inside them. I don't believe that children are naturally born as "evil" humans on this earth, but I do believe that there is the behavioral tendency of "human nature" to be drawn to any degree to evil.
Nevertheless, to define someone as entirely "evil" is impossible, and the experiments that you mention does bring light to a pretty frightening reality of the deceptions of any sort of judgments about evil.
Oh... for katie's comment... for those of you that don't know about the milgram experiment... pretty much it was to test the power of authority as participants were urged to act as "teachers" and flip a switch which they believed was giving a more powerful shock for each wrong answer to an old man with heart problems (no one was actually shocked). the results of the experiment were shocking as most participants (even after the old man stopped responding ie. he was "dead") they continued to administer the more powerful shocks when told to.
Anyway.. as for my specific feelings.. the book I am reading pretty much covers the topic of evil and how/why it occurs. Currently it is posing more questions than answer but some of the answers include that many people view the US's views as a fundamental opposite of their own and so feel threatened. A lot, specifically terrorists and the Rwanda genocide the author attributed to a cycle of hate/revenge.
As for melanie's question about bringing her own religion into the discussion... I think that that is fine. Your religion is part of your views. We are all just sharing our views...
In response to Melanie: yes. i don't have a problem with you using your religious beliefs to answer questions, because that is part of you. I actually would prefer if you did answer that way because you are then not denying a part of your life. Just as a non-religious person would use her/her background to answer questions, you should not feel hesitant to answer the way you truly believe.
In response to Ms. Finn and others: I think of all people as "clean slates" and each experience you have, good or bad, is a mark on that "slate." I don't think that evil exists, but i do think that people have the tendency to do bad things. My problem with "evil" is not in its concept, but in the connotation that the word has. To me evil is a permanent thing, a stigma that can never be washed of the "slate." I think that people can do terrible things, but that terrible tendency can also be forgiven.
I believe that evil exists. It seems to me to be more a result of "nurture" than of "nature," but I think that nature has a small factor in how evil a person acts. Knowing little about genetics, i cannot say whether or not a tendency toward violence or agression, for example, is a trait passed on through the genes, but i would imagine that genetics play some role in such personality triats.
In terms of nurture, or the environment in which a person is raised, I believe that evil tendencies are a direct result of environmental factors. An interesting study (I'm sure such studies have been performed) would be on the effects of violence in the home or violence from video games and the effect of these environmental variables on a person's personality. This sort of test would help determine the causes for "evil" tendencies.
In response to Ms. Finn's third question, (Can any one event be unanimously labeled evil by the global community, or do cultural differences create boundaries that forever divide opinions?), i believe that, like Jordan said, it is impossible to label a whole community as evil without knowing the specifics of each person's past experiences. Sometimes what may seem like an evil act could be completely justifiable with background information about the causes for that act.
Also in response to Melanie's concern with using religion on the blog, like most other people have said, i think it is perfectly acceptable, especially because it is a part of your worldview and identity.
Just to clarify, in response to Michael's post, I don't think that Ms. Finn actually made this post. I think someone else just signed in as her.
So my English class had a really amazing discussion about evil last class. One conclusion that most of the class came to is that evil resides in intent. For instance, someone can kill someone, but the person may not be evil because they may have been forced into the act, and that rather the act itself is evil. However, I wonder how far the "cultural relativity" and "situational factor" excuse can be made. I feel like this reasoning leads to the inability to ever punish anyone or to ever make the assertion that someone was wrong because they can always blame their actions on someone or something else.
At what point can the blame be no longer placed on someone else? When are we reponsible for our acts as individual human beings and not as products of our relative cultures and situations?
In response to Melanie, I don't think that "cultural relativity" and "situational factor" are not excuses but rather ideas that must be taken into account when studying genocide and determining the guilt of perpretrators in court.
And in response to Michael, do genetically inherited tendencies towards agression or violence mean that a person is evil?
Post a Comment