The Lottery Response

            The Lottery on the surface seems like a joyous event that brings the community together. The feelings associated around a lottery is good fortune and wealth. In this story however I found the word choice interesting which leads the leader to assume that this is a story about a person who wins the lottery and benefits from it. The inverse is obviously true which begs the question as to why Shirley Jackson chose to call this the lottery. I think this was the case to fully immerse the reader into the work before pulling the rug from under them and explaining what was happening beyond our preconceived notions.

            Something that stood out for me was how the villagers all believed that this practice was just. This collective mentality led them to do terrible things to people. It was the norm, and to be abnormal is seen as bad. Even when there were protests about this practice, it only came after she was negatively affected. This yearly occurrence was not spoken out about by Tessie, but when her time was called she was rightfully against it. She was able to fully understand the wrongness once she was in the same place of those who were wrongfully stoned before her. 

Stanford Prison Experiment Response

            The Stanford Prison Experiment raises the question of if we all have hostile tendencies within us. Often whenever we have these ill thoughts we censor ourselves and treat people respectfully. However, given the proper setting, people can overcome their inhibitions and act in terrible ways. The role of prisoner and guard made people act in vastly different ways based off of their fabricated status. Those in the guard role changed to fit an authoritative version of a guard. Without being pushed to become hostile, a section of the guards became cruel to the prisoners for no reason other than the fact they were the guard and the other was a prisoner.

            This shows the effect of status and power on the human psyche. An influx of power placed into the hands of a group of people tempt people to act in ways they normally would not. The inverse can also be said, the prisoners who were stripped of their personal freedoms began to become meeker and more soft-spoken than before.  They adapted to their new role and fell into place. Something that stuck with me was how there were no special qualifications to be a part of this experiment. These everyday people were transformed and this makes me think of what would happen if those I knew were put into a similar situation. 

Milgrams Study Response

The Milgram experiment was an interesting attempt to understand what went through the minds of German soldiers and officers during the holocaust. It tested how willing a person was to follow orders simply because they were ordered to do so.  Following orders allows for that one following them to give up control. This is both restricting and liberating in other senses. On one hand you are not doing things of your own volition, but you don’t need to think for yourself which relieves you of being responsible for your actions. Being able to attribute your actions to someone else’s in it of itself is liberating.

Taking yourself out of the equation allows for a person to do things they couldn’t have alone. Be it for better or worse, following orders forces people to push their limits whether or not that is a good thing. In regards to the experiment, those who opted to quit the experiment were very few. Even when the teachers were made aware of the learners “heart condition” it did not completely sway them from following the orders of the experimenter. This relinquishing of freedom made the teachers do things they normally wouldn’t dream of doing even if that thing was to hurt another. 

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.