Zimbardo "The Psychology of Evil" Response

            The bluntness and directness of Zimbardo is a touch refreshing coming from reading Mills old fashioned style of writing. Zimbardo brings me in through the picture which has the angels and demons. The angels and demons being so close and intertwined made me think of the thin line that separates good and evil. Even though the angels and demons were black or white, their proximity led me to believe that the grey area between angel and demons was the logical next step. Eventually the lines would blur creating a blob of gray where the ambiguousness of good and evil is apparent.

            While reading this chapter the thought of detachment came to mind. When I say detachment I mean the thing that removes people so far that they have no qualms of hurting another person. If you promised someone 100 million dollars to kill someone would they do it? You can either go and kill the person yourself or push a button that would do it for you. If someone were to take this sinister deal, odds are they would push the button. The thing that allows people to do such terrible things is by removing themselves from the situation mentally. Yes technically you still killed someone, however you didn’t get your own hands dirty. This allows the person to do something evil while still being able to live with themselves.

Mill "On the Connexion..." Response

           In Mills "On the Connexion between Justice and Utility” he draws the parallels between justice and utility. Something I found interesting was Mill dissecting the word Justice and attempting to create a universal definition of justice. Everyone has different perceptions of justice and what it entails. I found it interesting how as humans desire that people are punished for their actions. Our laws and justice system incorporate our desire to punish those who do things that we define as wrong as a community.

            What’s interesting concept in this chapter had to do with the relationship between justice and morals. Originally I thought that justice and morality were extremely synonymous. Even though this is somewhat true, it is not as extreme as I thought. Morals and justice keep each other in check. When one goes out of whack the other jumps into place. When the justice system fails we rely on morality to see us through. With the inverse, we use justice to police morality that has become corrupted. In addition to this, morality is a set of rules that dictate your personal life while justice is more prevalent in your public one. 

Mill "What Utilitarianism Is" Response

            In the latest reading on Mill he proceeds to lay out exactly what utilitarianism is. Instead of rambling on about his definition and his definition alone, he brings to light common misconceptions. I thought this was the best way to go about explaining what utilitarianism is. If had given a long drawn out definition I doubt I would have been able to complete the reading. The way he transitioned from misconception to fact allowed for me to stay focused because the subject matter was changing. This made each paragraph a new subject of the overarching theme.

            
            When Mill combats the claim that thinking the meaning of life is pleasure he tries to say that our pleasures are superior to that of animals. That our quest for pleasure is not comparable to that of an animal. I feel like this argument doesn’t address the core issue with the statement being that our search is for pleasure. The way Mill spells it out makes it feel as if we as humans are selfish creatures. Granted selfishness does exist, I just think that diluting the meaning of life to pleasure demeans what people live for. It would be difficult to find purpose if you lived for nothing save for personal pleasure

Mill "General Remarks" Response

            Through this introduction to Mill’s writing, I see that this was written in a different time period that I’m unaccustomed to. The writing is dense and some sentences are the length of paragraphs. With this being said, from this first short reading I grasped the Mill is on a search for a standard to morality. Understandably so because it seems as if most everyone’s moral code consists of similar traits. This correlation between people and their basis of morality can certainly lead to a simplified list of things that are moral and amoral. In theory this should work, however I think this prospect isn’t possible. It’s too difficult to boil down such a vast and complex topic into a simple list. There is too much that goes into morality for it to be easily compressed to a certain baseline of morality. If this was to be done then I believe that morals would be left out.

            The real reason why our moral codes seem to line up is because we have all been influenced by similar if not the same things. As Americans, a lot of our morals are shaped from things found within the bible. The same could be said in other countries but their holy book could be the Thora or the Quran. Most of the morality we have learned have come from holy texts which share similarities. Today’s society’s morals are linked with these religious texts. Even if you are not a religious person, these ideals have seeped out of the religion and has inserted itself into everyday society. These morals aren’t thought of as religious doctrine, but as ways we as humans should live and interact with one another. 

Hollander "Grappling with Evil in Our Time" Response

Hollanders Grappling with Evil, discussed evil among other things. He brought up how evil has been woven into our society and the media. He gave a good example by pointing out how far you have to look for a show or movie that is devoid of killing or bloodshed. These evil acts are being watched as entertainment. Even if they are seen as the villain, we still do not mind watching these violent acts be committed. While talking on evil, it is made apparent that evil is inescapable. Day to day we are subjected to various tiny evils. This brought to my mind the concept of original sin and how sin is automatically present within our lives. The fact that we enjoy watching films and shows that include evil can lead to people thinking that this is a result of original sin.

Another topic discussed was moral relativism. From what I read I took moral relativism to be the embodiment of being in the gray area.  The difference in morals and judgements from person to person could lead to conflict. With moral relativism, this is a non-issue because we learn to tolerate those who have a different set of morals than our own. Moral relativism can lead to dangerous thinking. I feel that some sets of morals cannot be tolerated. If in one person’s moral code killing a man is just then we should not simply tolerate his moral code. Granted this is a rather extreme case, however there are flaws in the thought process of a person who believes in moral relativism. It seems to be more of a passive ideology which avoids conflict but not necessarily the issues at hand. 

Klosterman "Hitler Is in the Book" Response

While reading this chapter originally I found it perplexing that Klosterman did not want to talk about Hitler in his book about evil. Hitler is the go to guy for evil. The one stop shop for the embodiment of evil in today’s society. When Klosterman went over why he was hesitant to do so it made perfect sense. While talking about Hitler since he’s such a well explored historical villain. So much has been said about him and certain things can and cannot be said about him. The mold of Hitler has been made and if people deviate from it it becomes an issue.  I found it interesting how Klosterman was so restricted when he was essentially forced to write on Hitler because it is expected.

Another thing that came to mind in this chapter was the societal need for Hitler. We place Hitler upon a pedestal of villainy even when you do the numbers he has not been the worst dictator. Hitler is used as the top dog with respect to villainy in today’s western society. I feel like this is the case because Hitler’s actions had a direct influence on the western world. He is seen as the cause of WWII and the paramount of evil. As a society I believe that we use Hitler as the extreme of the evil scale. It allows us to see certain atrocities and be able to compare those tragic events to Hitler. Since Hitler is seen as the ultimate evil, other evil actions are diluted when compared to the Hitler we use as a scale. 

Klosterman "Crime and Punishment" Response

The chapter of “Crime and Punishment” went back to the infamous OJ Simpson case and made good points on his unorthodox behavior after being acquitted. After being acquitted of his crimes instead of fading into obscurity he continued to be the center of attention. What I got from his actions are that he either feels that since he was falsely charged he should not have to change his extravagant lifestyle, or he’s mocking the jury which handed down an incorrect verdict. I’m not well versed in the OJ case but I can understand his actions if he were innocent. After being wrongfully accused of a rather heinous crime should not be punished for a crime he did not commit. Perhaps in his mind him fading away from the public eye would mean that even though he was innocent the court would essentially take his life away. If this is looked at from the perspective that he is innocent, then he has done no wrong. On the other hand if was guilty then his behavior would be disgusting.   

The section on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar spoke on a unique person who didn’t conform to the role of a stereotypical celebrity. Even though he was an impressive basketball player, people didn’t like him as a person because he wasn’t the stereotype of a basketball player. He was playing the game while being himself which people mistook to being standoffish and aloof. I found it ridiculous that he was vilified to such a point that he later on attempted to change his image. The things that people forced upon him made a man who was true to himself change into something he wasn’t. The conventions of a celebrity were too restricting. If you strayed from that path you were either forgotten or vilified as Kareem was. 

Klosterman "Villains who are not Villains" Response

            In the chapter on Villains who are not Villains, human perception was put on blast. Klosterman brought up a hijacker named DB Cooper. He hijacked a plane with the threat of blowing up the entire plane along with the passengers if the airline would not meet his demands. The fact that we see him has some sort of urban legend or hero speaks volumes on human perception. We perceived this man as being cool and calm while he threatened the lives of civilians and airline workers. We perceive confidence as an ultra-shield which blocks a negative image. If Cooper was an everyday criminal then this story wouldn’t be told. Without the confidence and suaveness we would judge him based off his actions and not just his persona.

            Another thing that I think attributed to the praising of DB Cooper was because he got away scot-free. He disappeared without a trace completing his objective while boosting himself to the status of folk lore. People are attracted to mystery. The thought of a cool gentlemanlike mysterious man fulfilling the perfect hijacking is seen as a good thing. Even though the reality of the situation was much direr. People’s lives were in danger and Cooper threatened an entire plane to get money. Even though this is the case, we all perceive his actions as awe inspiring because of his disposition and the fact that he disappeared without a trace like a ghost. 

Klosterman "What you say..." Reflection

            Klosterman talks about what the most evil thing a person can do is. After reading this I began to flood my mind with a myriad of terrible and evil things that I know of. Once I returned from my thoughts I saw that Klosterman attributed tying a woman up to the train tracks to be the most evil something a person can do. At first I was apprehensive to this statement, however once he explained his reasoning it made sense. When people would think of evil they would see a man with a mustache and goatee tying a damsel to the train tracks while awaiting her inevitable demise. A lot of times there are grey areas when classifying a certain act as evil. This however was an exception. I doubt many people would deny the fact that tying a woman to the train tracks would be considered evil. We have been conditioned to believing this and therefore we all see it as an evil act.

            Another interesting thing Klosterman brought up was how one act can tarnish a rather spotless if not revered record. Often times with a person who lives in the spotlight doing good, there are those who look endlessly for their flaws. In addition to being in the spotlight they are also under a microscope so when you slip up at all we all know and through the microscope it is a huge deal. I found it interesting because it seemed like the more people you influence the closer people look at you. For the average college student, if you were caught drinking while underage it wouldn’t ruin your entire college career. Now if this student were a famous celebrity this could potentially ruin his entire career. When a person is placed so high up, the fall down is devastating. 

Klosterman "Preface" Response

            The tone of Chuck Klostermans I wear the Black Hat seems to be rather light. From the preface I get that he’s going to be discussing serious things while keeping an approachable tone. Not too preachy but not too immature. He seems like he’s just writing his thoughts how they appear organically.  It’s refreshing to read in comparison to the first reading we read. Instead of being old and out of touch, it reference current entertainment such as Star Wars. The way he writes makes you feel as if you’re having a conversation which allows for me to read his writing easily.

            In the preface, something that Klosterman said resonated with me. When he was talking about how he viewed the strangers outside of his window and how he didn’t care about them. He proceeded to bring up how cares about strangers when they’re abstract. This resonated because at times I feel a similar way. Often times when I see those I don’t know or have not attachment to they don’t really exist. In my universe those who I know exist and those who don’t are merely nameless characters around me. Like Klosterman, I feel like this view is problematic because some say strangers are just acquaintances you haven’t met yet.