Week 12

1
Week 12

• Evil

2
In todays lecture

• The nature of evil
• Akrasia (????)
• Banality of evil (????)
• Milgram experiment
• Stanford prison experiment
• The power of the situation
• Final Exam

3
The nature of evil

• What is evil? What causes people to do evil?
• Is there a clear dividing line between good
  people and bad people?
• Is it possible for a good person to turn evil?
  Are we all potentially evil?

4
The nature of evil

• Evil can be defined as knowingly inflicting
  undeserved suffering upon other people.
• There is a clear difference, for example, between
  unknowingly passing on a virus to other
  passengers on a bus, and intentionally (???)
  injecting a passenger with a needle filled with
  virus.

5
The nature of evil

• Stealing from a supermarket is wrong, but it
  cannot be regarded as evil. A 3-year-old boy may
  throw a toy at his little brother and hurt him,
  but it is not evil because he has no idea what he
  is doing. Also, punishing a criminal for
  wrongdoing is not an act of evil because the
  criminal deserves to be punished.

6
The nature of evil

• Many of us believe that evil is a quality that
  can be found only in evil persons but not in
  ordinary people.
• But history has shown again and again that
  ordinary people are capable of extraordinary
  evil. Evildoers need not be evil people. It is
  ordinary individuals, like you and me, who commit
  extraordinary evil.

7
The nature of evil

• An action intended to be good may bring with it
  unintended evil consequences. For example, the
  Catholic Church once believed that evil could be
  eliminated (??) by killing witches (??). Between
  1450 and 1750, up to 200,000 people were tried
  (??), found guilty (??), and either hanged from
  the gallows (??) or burned at the stake (??).

8
The nature of evil

• Who were the victims of the witch hunt (????)?
  Most of them were old women who lived alone or
  acted differently from ordinary people, such as
  using herbs as medicine.
• As it turned out, the attempt to combat (??) evil
  had actually caused evil on a massive scale.

9
The nature of evil

• People perform violent, harmful, and cruel acts
  all over the world, and they have done so
  throughout history.
• The Nazis (????) killed millions of Jews (???).
  Stalins government (?????) murdered 20 million
  Russians. 30 million Chinese died because of
  political reasons during the rule of Chairman Mao.

10
The nature of evil

• The Communist Khmer Rouge regime (????) killed
  off 1.7 million local people in Cambodia (???).
  In 1994, more than 800,000 Rwandans (????) were
  murdered in just 3 months.
• In each case, people committed acts of violence
  and cruelty not as individuals but always did so
  as a group.

11
The nature of evil

• We live in the age of violence, cruelty, and
  mass murder. However, surprisingly few people who
  participated in acts of mass killing would
  recognize themselves as evil.
• Do the participants of mass killing have
  conscience (??)? Why do they seem to show little
  sense of guilt (???) or remorse (??)?

12
Akrasia

• Plato believed that there are 2 reasons why
  people do bad or wrong things
• 1 ignorance ?? (not knowing what is the right
  thing to do)
• 2 moral weakness (akrasia or weakness of will,
  i.e. knowing what is right but unable to do it)

13
Akrasia

• According to Plato, people do bad or wrong things
  because they are ignorant of the good, and they
  perform evil actions in the mistaken belief that
  those actions are good.
• But there is another possibility people know
  what is good, but they do evil nonetheless.

14
Akrasia

• Sometimes people do bad things out of ignorance,
  but sometimes they know full well what they are
  doing. The notion of akrasia (????) means doing
  something that one believes is not the right
  thing to do.

15
Akrasia

• will power or ability to make choices or
  decisions
• akrasia (weakness of will or moral weakness)
  a condition in which a person knows what is the
  right or best thing to do, but does something
  else instead

16
Akrasia

• In akrasia, a gap exists between knowing and
  doing, The question is
• If a person judges action A to be the best, why
  would he or she do anything other than A?

17
Akrasia

• Plato, as you should remember, thought of the
  human soul as having 3 parts Reason, Spirit and
  Appetite.
• Justice is a condition of the soul in which each
  of those 3 parts does its own work, and does
  not interfere in (??) the workings of the other
  parts.

18
Akrasia

• Weakness of will, or akrasia, is a situation in
  which the appetitive (???) part of the soul
  (Appetite) overrules (??) Reasons judgments.
• A persons action is bad or wrong because the
  soul is not in harmony one part of the soul is
  doing something that it should not be doing.

19
Akrasia

• For example, you know that stealing is wrong, but
  you are very hungry. So you steal food from the
  supermarket.
• According to Plato, you did something wrong
  because Appetite, rather than Reason, is making
  the decision.

20
Akrasia

• The remedy (????), in Platos view, is a simple
  one if evil is the result of ignorance and
  weakness of will, we can eliminate (??) evil
  through moral education.
• Through moral education, we can impart (??)
  knowledge of the good to people and strengthen
  their will power (???) or self-control.

21
Think!

• What causes people to do evil? Ignorance?
  Weakness of will? Or something else?
• Do you agree with Plato that it is possible to
  reduce or eliminate evil through moral education?

22
Radical evil

• Some Christian thinkers argue that God created
  human beings with free will and allowed them to
  make choices.
• According to this view, human beings do evil
  because they choose to do so, i.e. evil
  intentions (??) or evil motives (??) lead to evil
  actions.

23
Radical evil

• For Kant, radical evil is the type of evil
  which is rooted in an evil motivation (??) or an
  intention to do evil.
• According to Kant, people do bad or wrong things
  because they put self-interest (????) or desire
  (??) before duty (????) and universal moral
  principles (??????).

24
Radical evil

• For Kant, humans have free will and thus the
  capacity to choose between alternatives, i.e. to
  choose between good and evil actions (i.e.
  between self-interest and duty).
• As long as they have the power to make choices
  and decisions, they should be held responsible
  for their actions.

25
Think!

• The Holocaust (?????) refers to the planned
  killing of millions of Jews during the Second
  World War at the Nazi concentration camps
  (?????).

26
Think!

• The Holocaust is generally considered to have
  been the result of a highly efficient
  bureaucratic organization (????).
• The Holocaust would not have occurred without the
  authorization (??) of Hitler and other
  high-ranking Nazi government officials.

27
Think!

• However, hundreds of thousands of Germans also
  participated or co-operated in the murder of
  Jews. Do you think that they committed horrible
  crimes against the Jewish people because of
  ignorance, moral weakness or self-interest?

28
The banality of evil

• Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was a German-Jewish
  scholar who escaped Nazism. She devoted much of
  her intellectual energy to understanding the
  atrocities (??) that took place during the
  Holocaust.

29
The banality of evil

• Before the Holocaust, it was believed that evil
  acts were committed by individuals with evil
  motives who intentionally cause harm to others.
• Arendt, however, argued that the Holocaust could
  not be explained by the participants evil intent
  (??), or motives such as self-interest.

30
The banality of evil

• Adolph Eichmann was a bureaucrat (??) in Nazi
  Germany under the rule of Hitler. During the
  Second World War, he had been responsible for
  planning and arranging the transportation of Jews
  to the concentration camps.

Adolph Eichmann (1906-1962)
31
The banality of evil

• Although Eichmann did not directly kill anyone,
  there was no question that he understood the fate
  of the Jews that he was responsible for
  transporting to the concentration camps. This,
  however, did not stop him from carrying out his
  job.

32
The banality of evil

• Eichmann fled (??) to Argentina (???) after the
  war, but in 1960, he was kidnapped (??) by
  Israeli agents (?????) and was taken to Israel,
  where he was put on trial (??) for crimes against
  the Jewish people.

33
The banality of evil

• According to Arendt, the trial (??) of Adolph
  Eichmann (Adolf Eichmann ???) called into
  question the assumption that individuals are
  driven by evil intentions and motivations to
  commit evil acts.

34
The banality of evil

• The Israeli government sent six psychologists
  (????) to examine Eichmann during his
  imprisonment before his trial. They found no
  trace of mental illness, and no evidence of
  abnormal personality (????). Eichmann also showed
  no trace of anti-semitism (?????).

35
The banality of evil

• Arendt, who attended the trial, concluded that
  Eichmann was not a wicked (???) person, nor did
  he have any evil intentions against the Jews.
• Arendt was surprised to find that Eichmann was
  completely ordinary and normal. He could not be
  dismissed as mad or as different from the rest of
  us.

36
The banality of evil

• The problem with Eichmann, in Arendts view, was
  that he was incapable of thinking about the
  criminality of his acts. He had no self-awareness
  (???) of the evil nature of his actions.
• He did not consider any moral questions when he
  was carrying out his duties during the Holocaust.

37
The banality of evil

• Eichmanns actions were not driven by hatred (??)
  or malice (??). The only thing on his mind was to
  do his best to execute (??) his duties, and he
  gave little or no thought to the consequences of
  doing so.

38
The banality of evil

• Eichmann took his cue (?????) for his behavior
  from the actions of people around him (i.e. other
  Nazi bureaucrats).
• Because everyone around him was following orders
  from above, he did the same without thinking
  about whether what he was doing was right or
  wrong.

39
The banality of evil

• Eichmann believed that carrying out the
  extermination (??) of Jews was an act of loyalty
  (??) to his country and Hitler.
• Like other Nazi bureaucrats, Eichmann just
  followed orders without thinking about the nature
  of his own actions. (He thought of himself as a
  small cog (??) in a big machine.)

40
The banality of evil

• In Arendts view, the Nazi government
  organization had effectively destroyed the
  individuality and personality of people like
  Eichmann.
• Eichmann was so accustomed to (????) following
  orders to the point that he was unable to make
  independent moral judgments anymore.

41
The banality of evil

• Evil, as Arendt sees it, can be explained in
  terms of
• 1 blind obedience to authority (??????), and
• 2 thoughtlessness or inability to think
  about the nature and consequences of ones actions

42
The banality of evil

• Evil intent was absent in most people involved in
  the Holocaust. Most of them were normal people
  like all of us, according to Arendt.
• The evil committed by Eichmann and others was
  banal (??) because anyone in the same situation
  would have done the same things that Eichmann did.

43
The banality of evil

• The banality of evil is the idea that even evil
  on a gigantic (???) scale, such as the Holocaust,
  can be practiced by ordinary people.
• What makes this evil so dangerous is that no
  exceptional (???) human qualities are required
  for it to happen.

44
The banality of evil

• Was Eichmann an evil person? To what extent
  should he be held responsible for his crime? Did
  he deserve to be sentenced to death?
• Do you agree with Arendt that evil actions are
  more often the result of obedience to authority
  and thoughtlessness rather than evil
  intentions?

45
The banality of evil

• As we will see, the Milgram Experiment, conducted
  by Stanley Milgram, and the Stanford prison
  experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo, both
  appear to lend support to Arendts views on the
  origin (??) and nature of human evil. These
  experiments show, in particular, how much social
  situations can influence individuals behavior.

46
Milgram experiment

• Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) was a social
  psychologist who tried to investigate why people
  obeyed immoral orders in the Holocaust.

47
Milgram experiment

• The Milgram experiment was a series of social
  psychology experiments conducted by Yale
  University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which
  measured the willingness of study participants to
  obey an authority figure who instructed them to
  perform acts that might conflict with their
  personal conscience (??).

48
Milgram experiment

• Social psychology is the branch of psychology
  that studies the way our thoughts, feelings, and
  behavior are affected, directly or indirectly, by
  other people.
• Milgrams research question is simple How far
  would ordinary people go in inflicting serious
  harm on a perfectly innocent stranger if they
  were told to do so by an authority figure?

49
Milgram experiment

• To see whether ordinary people can be induced to
  commit cruel acts, Milgram set up an experiment
  in which participants were ordered to inflict
  painful electrical shocks on innocent people.
• Milgram wanted to find out whether people would
  cause harm to others because of obedience to
  authority.

50
Milgram experiment

• Milgram showed that many people participated in
  the bogus (??) memory experiment were willing to
  deliver harmful electric shocks to another person
  who posed as (???) a learner.
• Only about a third of the participants were able
  to resist authority (????).

51
Milgram experiment

• Almost two-thirds of people were willing to
  administer shocks to others even to the point
  of a lethal (???) 450 volts simply because they
  were ordered to do so by a scientist in a white
  lab coat.

52
Milgram experiment

• Many participants believed that the moral
  standards of their personal lives were entirely
  irrelevant or inappropriate when they were taking
  part in an experiment.
• They thought that they were not personally
  responsible for their actions because they were
  only following orders from an authority figure
  (the scientist).

53
Milgram experiment

• Milgram focuses our attention on the social and
  situational pressures that can lead ordinary
  people to commit extraordinary evil.
• In short, Milgrams experiments show that evil
  can occur as a result of obedience to authority.

54
Milgram experiment

• Do you think that the findings of Milgrams
  obedience experiments provide a good explanation
  for the evil deeds committed by Eichmann and
  other Nazi bureaucrats? Why or why not?

55
Stanford prison experiment
Philip Zimbardo (1933 - )

• Philip Zimbardo wanted to study the effects of
  the prison environment on human behavior. His
  famous Stanford Prison Experiment argues a strong
  case for the power of the situation.

56
Stanford prison experiment

• The film The Experiment was inspired by real
  events that happened during the Stanford prison
  experiment.

57
Stanford prison experiment

• While Stanley Milgram is interested in obedience
  to authority, Philip Zimbardo is more interested
  in the dynamics (??) of group behavior, i.e.
  factors that are likely to have significant
  effects on peoples behavior in situations such
  as prisons and concentration camps.

58
Stanford prison experiment

• The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the
  psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or
  prison guard.
• In the experiment, groups of volunteer university
  students were randomly assigned to be prisoners
  and guards in a simulated (???) prison.

59
Stanford prison experiment

• Both groups wore uniforms throughout the
  experiment, and the prisoners names were
  replaced by numbers. Their sense of individuality
  was weakened as a result.
• Zimbardo found that about one third of the
  guards became increasingly cruel as the
  experiment continued.

60
Stanford prison experiment

• Video recordings showed that the guards abused
  their authority (????) over the prisoners, for
  example, by humiliating (??) the prisoners or
  making up additional punishment for them.
• The experiment had to be ended after 6 days
  because of the escalation of violence (????).

61
Stanford prison experiment

• What Zimbardo discovered was how easily normal
  people can be led to to commit acts of senseless
  cruelty under the right conditions. Evil, for
  Zimbardo, is in the system, not the individual.
• The prison system alone was a sufficient
  condition to produce violent behavior even in the
  absence of brutal (???) leaders.

62
Stanford prison experiment

• Zimbardo argues that people commit acts of
  cruelty not only because of obedience to
  authority but also because of other situational
  factors such as role-playing (????), social
  modeling (????), and group dynamics (????).

63
Stanford prison experiment

• In role-playing, individuals adjust their
  underlying beliefs and values to what is
  consistent with their roles and actions. In the
  Stanford prison experiment, the participants
  behaved as if they had become prisoners or
  guards, and they were no longer able to clearly
  differentiate between (??) role-playing and their
  real selves.

64
Stanford prison experiment

• In some situations, we are uncertain what to
  think or how to act. We simply do not know enough
  to make good or accurate choices. As a result of
  our uncertainty, we believe that others
  interpretation of the situation is more correct
  than ours, so we copy what they do. This is
  called social modeling.

65
Stanford prison experiment

• Zimbardo also identified 3 mechanisms (??) in
  group dynamics
• 1 diffusion of responsibility (??????)
• 2 deindividuation (????)
• 3 conformity to peer pressure (??????)

66
Stanford prison experiment

• In a large group or complex organization,
  responsibility can be divided up in such a way
  that no one seems to blame even if there are
  extraordinary evil results. Diffusion of
  responsibility happens when an individual no
  long feels personally responsible for the groups
  actions.

67
Stanford prison experiment

• Deindividuation means a state of relative
  anonymity (??) in which a person cannot be
  identified as a particular individual but only as
  a group member people partially lose awareness
  of themselves as individuals and cease to
  evaluate their own actions thoughtfully.

68
Stanford prison experiment

• Most people want to be accepted by others. They
  fear rejection (?????) and thus have a tendency
  to conform to peer pressure. As such, they are
  likely to act in accordance with group norms (??)
  and group expectations.

69
Stanford prison experiment

• Our choice of clothing and consumer products,
  for example, are often influenced by pressures to
  conform. What about our behavior? How do social
  interaction affect our thoughts and actions?

70
Stanford prison experiment

• To sum up, Zimbardos conclusions are
• 1 the system (or situation), not individual
  personalities, was the cause of the participants
  behavior
• 2 people acting in groups may do violent
  things that they would not do when acting as
  individuals

71
Think!

• Are the causes of evil primarily situational, as
  suggested by Stanley Milgrams obedience
  experiments and Philip Zimbardos Stanford prison
  experiment? How do experiments of this kind help
  us understand the nature of human evil?

72
The power of the situation

• We often overestimate (??) the power of personal
  choice and underestimate (??) the power of
  situational forces.
• It is often assumed that individuals are always
  in control of their behavior, act from free will
  and rational choice, and thus personally
  responsible for their actions.

73
The power of the situation

• After the publication of the results of Milgrams
  and Zimbardos experiments, however, discussion
  of evil changed its focus from personal factors
  (character, moral choice, individual freedom and
  responsibility, etc.) to social, environment or
  situational factors.

74
The power of the situation

• Milgram and Zimbardo both believe that
  situational forces are much more powerful than
  personal factors in influencing behavior.
• In other words, we could find ourselves in
  situations where social pressures may lead us to
  do things that are unethical or immoral.

75
The power of the situation

• Morality the distinction between right and
  wrong, good and evil is to a very large extent
  defined by the group to which individuals belong.
• Some individuals, therefore, are willing to take
  actions that are normally regarded as evil once
  the group redraws the line between good and
  evil.

76
The power of the situation

• A bad system produces bad situations in which
  people act badly. Nazi Germany under the rule of
  Hitler was an example of such a system.
• The Holocaust would not have happened, however,
  without the willing participation of hundreds of
  thousands of ordinary German citizens.

77
The power of the situation

• Systems are designed and created by individuals.
  Should we therefore put the blame on the
  architects of the system, i.e. individuals such
  as Adolph Eichmann?

78
The power of the situation

• Finally, the power of the situation should not
  be taken as a causal explanation for evil the
  situation does not causally determine an
  individuals actions and decisions.
• In Milgrams experiment and the Stanford Prison
  experiment, some individuals were able to resist
  (??) the influence of the system or situation.

79
The power of the situation

• Why are some people able to make correct moral
  choices in spite of the power of the situation?
  What do others fail to do so?
• How well do we know ourselves? Can we predict
  what we would or would not do in situations we
  have never before encountered?

80
Reading

• Read the article titled Questioning the
  banality of evil. The link to the article can be
  found on the course website.

81
Final Exam

• The format of the exam is similar to that of the
  mid-term test.
• Section A consists of 10 True or False
  questions (20) and Section B contains 2 short
  questions (20). For Section C, you have to
  choose 2 out of 5 questions and give detailed
  answers. (60)

82
Final Exam

• Assessment for Section C will be largely based on
  the quality of the arguments and explanations you
  give.
• Although there are no model answers to the
  questions in Section C, students who demonstrate
  good critical thinking and argumentative skills
  will get better grades.

83
Final Exam

• Some of the questions in Section C are related to
  the films you watched in class, so you are
  strongly advised to read the plot summaries.
• Plan, organize and think about relevant arguments
  and examples before you attempt the questions in
  Section C.