Podcast found here.
We've been researching whether or not we believe the creature to be an innocent/guilty party in Shelley's Frankenstein. This seems like a wonderful opportunity to look outside of our novel and explore the possibilities of evil being an inherent trait or a result of one's upbringing and environment.
Let's listen to the following podcast, an episode of Radiolab, that focuses on some of these very issues.
I'd like you to post your response considering the following:
-If we are to consider the creature's inclination to kill as part of his nature, perhaps we can explain why some people commit murder. Maybe some people are simply born "bad?" Does everyone have some "dark" side? Why do people do bad things? Why do humans wish death upon others? Can we explain human cruelty? How do people prevent themselves from committing terrible acts like murder? Is murder something that only irrational people are capable of?
-I'd like you to weigh in. Do you think some people are "natural born killers?" Explore the ideas presented in the podcast and react to the stories presented within.
-Do not merely comment but ask questions and engage fellow students in discussion. Do you dis/agree with any ideas posted in the discussion? Let's respond in a public forum, professionally of course.
Every human or living being with humane traits has the capacity of being evil or "bad". It only depends upon what type of life they have had and how others have treated them. Human cruelty is a part of what makes us human. We are hurt by others because we are different in some way; and so, we long to cause others pain as well as a form of "revenge" against the ones that first hurt us. We also do not have the right to say that murderers are irrational for our existence itself is irrational. We all have our faults and our weaknesses, they are what make us human. The one thing that separates us from those who commit crimes is our degree of self-control. Those we call evil are the same as us, they just either cannot or do not control the worse parts of them.
ReplyDeleteI support Alice’s reasoning as to why humans have a dark conscience lurking amongst themselves. Humans have the ability of thoughts and emotions, which set us apart from most living organisms in this world; the thoughts and emotions can be considered as a weakness in a way that we as humans perceive differently based upon the surrounding environment and atmosphere.
ReplyDeletePeople are not simply born bad; we are complex individuals and our reasons as to why we perform such actions cannot be fully understandable. We are not to judge and distinguish people into two categories:“Good” and “Evil”, rather we are all considered to be situated in the gray region since we all have our faults and flaws that makes us humane and imperfect. This imperfection and the capacity to think and feel are the source of human cruelty, which is indefinable as certain acts are more severe than others. For instance, reprimanding an individual can be considered as human cruelty meanwhile murdering a child can also be considered as human cruelty.
In my opinion, people can, in some cases, prevent themselves from committing such acts like murder by self-control; however, the “self-control” derives from rational reasoning. Rational reasoning is what all humans possess…it is how we reason and understand the world surrounding us. In contrast, irrational reasoning is the counteractive thought that we all also possess; when irrational thought replaces rational thought, we base our actions on our deepest and darkest emotions: fear, anger, revenge. This is where our degree of self control plays part in our decisions to commit such crime-our rational reasoning(sense of morals/principles) overpowers the irrational thought. This transition is how we are either capable of killing an individual to that of those individuals who restrain themselves from performing the murder.
Like Jenny said, we are the gray existence in this world, like every other living being. And yet, the one thing that I do not comprehend is how we, the human species, can kill animals and plants so freely, but when an animal, either out of desperation or anger, kills a human, or a human kills another human, the human society call those humans or animals insane and cruel murderers. Many people have argued that we can kill those animals because they are not as conscious or intelligent as we are. But who is it that judges how intelligent or aware these animals? It's us. We, the ones who kill those animal, believe that we are in the right to kill those animals and plants because we declared that they are not as intelligent as us. It is true that there are few other living beings with body structures as complex as ours, but how are we able to tell how intelligent they are. Just as they cannot understand our language, we cannot understand theirs. So what right do we have to claim that we can kill them because they are supposedly not as intelligent as us - where this observation was one we ourselves made. So how do we judge a person as evil or insane when they kill someone. We kill everyday in order to feed ourselves, so why do we not call ourselves murderers? This shows just how gray our existence is.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the dictionary, murder is defined as the killing of another human being under the conditions specifically covered in law; therefore, we are not murderers in the case of hunting animals.
ReplyDeleteWe, as humans, perceive ourselves to be superior to any other living organisms that exist in the world; in certain situations, this statement is true. We possess advanced and well developed cognitive skills as to complex verbal and written communication and ability of comprehension and thought/emotion; we develop and continue to develop advanced societies, make great strides in advances toward technological evolution, and interact freely among other individuals that come from the other side of the world.
(To Alice: consider the myth of Prometheus and the creation of humankind. According to the myth, Prometheus created man into the shape of gods and rulers of the world; he taught mankind things that animals/plants could never accomplish and gave them the warmth of fire. This evaluation reveals that perhaps, within our conscience, we are accustomed to believe that humans are the dominant species…as shown with a myth that dated back thousands of years ago from the Ancient Greeks. Maybe this distinctive instinct influences us to feel that it is cruel for humans to murder other humans and animals to injure humans.)
First, I'd like to commend Alice and Jenny for their work which shows ALL OF US how to hold a professional and engaging conversation. Note how the two engage one another's comments and offer their own opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm enthralled by the discussion of self-control and human cruelty. Alice brings up issues of killing animals and how we consider ourselves to be a superior race and yet commit unnecessary atrocities towards the plant and animal world. Jenny seems to focus on how we, as a species, perceive ourselves as superior because of potential.
Let's try to engage some of these topics while also revisiting the content of the podcast.
Like Alice, I agree that the desire to commit inhumane acts stems from how others have treated you and the values that you have been taught. I also agree that killers, to a degree, do not possess "self-control." Murderers may have an intent for killing someone, such as revenge. However, other killers may not be fully developed mentally, which is the reason for the crimes they commit. This is exemplified in the cases of murderers under 18 years old. Did they possess intent or was it simply an accident?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I don't think that people are natural born killers. I think that killers are influenced by their environment to commit inhumane actions. This environment includes the direct and indirect actions of the humans around them. A child could be exposed to violence through his/her parents' fighting with each other. The child could also be exposed to violence through the parents' direct actions to the child, such as physically or mentally attacking the child.
I found the beginning of the podcast interesting when it discussed the man who left his house so he could avoid killing his wife. This is an example of a lack of "self-control." Although the man could not tolerate his wife, he knew that he would bring harm to her if he stayed at his house. However, the man wanted to kill his wife simply because she insulted his clothing choice.
In reference to what Jenny said, it is true that we are "superior" in terms of technology advancements, but if it came down to it and we were all left alone in the wild without a single form a technology, then guess who or what would last longer? And because of our overwhelming dependence on the internet, electronics, and just normal everyday tool, the possibility of us evolving to adapt to our environment is becoming slimmer and slimmer. So how does this show our "potential"? The fact is that we no longer have any. Plants and animals actually have to struggle for their existence to continue, while we are just sitting around working on homework assignments with our butts plopped down in front of a computer or television more frequently than not.
ReplyDeleteAbout the original topic, where we were discussing whether or not humans are born with evilness inside them already. With what Christy said, we have to exercise our self-control instead of allowing our emotions to take over. But where does this self-control come from? We aren't born with programming inside of us like machinery that tells us what exactly to do and how to do it. Instead, we use the other skills we have been given, like the power of observation, to watch others and gain knowledge of how to act from our peers and elders. But what if our role-model is considered the "trash" of our society? Is that supposed seed of evilness planted then? When a person commits a murder do we blame him/her or his/her role model? But if that role model was considered bad, then where did that person's role model come from? There is an endless series of causes and effects that cause human behavior today. So, in a way, no one person can ever fully take the blame. After all, even the victim might be at fault because he insulted the other or even threatened him. So how do we know exactly who it is to take the full blame and receive the death penalty?
PS- sorry for writing too much D;
We do not realize our dependency on our judgments; we instinctively categorize other individuals or things by their value and their appearance. Adding to what Christy and Alice both said, our decisions are mainly based upon our principles that we have been educated. However, these morals may be subject to change accordingly as the society develops and advances; we obtain new perspectives that may reject or accept previous ideas and beliefs. For instance, consider cannibalism; during prehistoric times, humans believed that such acts were fit and appropriate for survival whereas in the modern era, we strongly disdain and oppose cannibalism as a brutal and uncivilized act. How can we explain this shift in our perspectives? Like Alice emphasized, we are not robots that were programmed to do certain actions in a specific way, believe certain actions, or have same thoughts/emotions…How do we explain the feelings and emotions that we experience? Self control primarily focuses on one’s ability to oppress the thoughts and feelings that interfere with our logic; is the emotions and the taught morals the roots of evilness? Why do we rely on judges to make the appropriate judgment as to who deserves punishment and death penalty? Judges are human and depend on their moral compass to guide them into the judgments; we give responsibility to those we trust in choosing the right decision and avoid such trouble as to facing the dilemmas, which has no definite positive or negative solution.
ReplyDeleteThere is never a “right decision”; we establish our beliefs and opinions through our perspective; this is a serious flaw in which I believe is the foundation of evil found within every individual.
Adding to what Jenny mentioned about how humans in general base their judgement on appearances (I actually wrote an essay on this matter.), it is true that people judge others for the most simplest of things just based on their appearances. I have seen kids from my middle school hang out with each other because they all dressed the same way or didn't like the way others dressed. Even adults make the same mistake, but they usually don't realize that they are doing so. Many of the teachers I have had, were harsher on the Asian kids since they believed that we could do more work just because we were Asian. I had a Korean friend who struggled with her work and was even more pressured because of the teachers expecting her to do more simply because her ancestry came from Asia.
ReplyDeleteEven myself, when I would be working in group projects, I would find most, or even all, the work pushed towards me because I was the "Asian nerd" in the group. What right do people have to give us a certain mold to grow into, just because it is based on our appearance? And this also brings into play stereotypes; many people believe that Asians are squinty eyed book worms that would have a seizure if we found a simple mistake in our work. I have heard kids in my school talking about how they would want to go onto a reservation so they could play in the casino like the Native Americans that live there.
Like Jenny said, judges are only human and they will base their decision on their morals and other beliefs no matter how they claim to be objective. And of course, there will never be a "right decision" because there is no god in this world, and even then, the god may be prejudiced in some way. Life decisions are not like math, where everything is black and white and the answers are always concrete. There are always going to be different opinions, because humans are unique, though they still share the same fundamental emotions.
I'm going to hop into this conversation. For what Jenny said, I agree with her. But there will be a right decision. Yes, it depends on the person, but nobody is an omniscient being. So for me, there is a right decision, and for you, there may also be a right decision. But a survey can't be taken, and so you can't take an average on the right decision. There is a right decision to me, and I am not you, so it is the right decision. I think I'm doing a terrible job of explaining this, so everyone has a right decision, for whatever it may be. So for everyone there is a right decision.
ReplyDeleteTo what Alice said about who to blame, I think it goes to the "closest" role-model on the chain of role models, if that role-model had the trait that was given off. That is the person who most directly influenced the one who committed the crime, or whatnot. Nobody is exactly the same as their role-model, it evolves slowly over time, with people adding or subtracting traits to pass on. But what makes someone want to be like another person? Even a person in jail could be a role model, and they wouldn't be a role model because of respect. Is their some primitive urge that makes one want to follow another?
I don't think that you can assign blame to one person and one only. I do believe that a good bit of the blame goes to the perpetrator. Still, you can't say "this is the closest role model, so they get ALL the blame." Actually, it is biologically possible to be "born bad" when there is a chemical imbalance in the brain and one is born sociopathic or psychopathic, but that's kind of irrelevant. Unless you are one of these two exceptions, I think we all agree that no one is completely responsible for their own actions. The problem is, it's a slippery slope to follow. Once you start giving people more and more leeway, you can't find a single stopping point where you can say here is the most slack we can afford. No. In theory, maybe, but not in life. About the appearances discussion, the problem with that is that like Jenny said, we instinctively judge someone based on what we see. The challenge is learning to recognize when we are doing that, and fight our urge to go with the stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes is, they were created because most or even just many members of a group behave/look/act in similar ways. Sorry Elias, but about the role model prompt, I disagree with you. I think that whenever someone wants to be like another person, placing that person as a role model is entirely an issue of respect, whether conscious or unconscious. They respect, if not everything about them, than some basic attribute, like their strength (physical and emotional), their courage, their intelligence. I do think that yes, there is a biological desire, ground in over centuries of evolution, to choose a role model and follow them. It was the most efficient way of learning, and of gradually improving the community, a member at a time. I mean, why did you think that little children chose someone older than them to idolize and follow around? It's biology. I welcome disagreement. :) Sorry, can't think of a question at the moment.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, humans are like wolves. We all have the instinct to follow someone, that's why religions have their god(s). Once in a while, there will be someone, or some people, that will have the urge to rule, to conquer. That's how empires formed and how tyrants came into play.
ReplyDeleteIn what Elias said, I agree that we should probably blame the "closest" role model of the chain but only because trying to find the original would take too much time and effort. After all, we would have to blame the first few people too, because if they hadn't existed or been "bad", then the criminals now might not have been "bad". It all depends on the context within the situation; the time, place, and circumstance.
Also, what Elias said about how there is always a right decision, that's also an opinion right there. Some people might say, like me, that there is never one right decision or answer. Others would say, that sometimes there is a right answer but at other times there isn't. Then, there are people similar to Elias, that say that there definitely has to be a right decision. But if everyone has their own "right" decision, then how do we tell, out of all those billions of choices, which one is the "right" one. Who will decide?
In a way, murderers are also like victims. Whatever past experience that person had to face throughout their lifetime is what shaped the "bad" inside of them. But also, those experience are what shape the morality inside of us and our ability to make right decisions. Their right decisions may not be what we think of as good decisions, since we obviously lived through different experiences than them. Props to Elias and Alice on the conversation on what truly are good decisions by the way. When someone wants to kill a certain individual, it may not be just because that person did something towards them. They want to "kill" that source of their grief, whether it is jealousy, regret, etc. and that person feels that ending that person's life will do so, probably since he has some resemblance or relation to this person's problems. This sort of resembles the reason why the creature in Frankenstein kills William, because he was related to his creator, who it blames for all of his problems and misfortunes.
ReplyDelete-Kevin Mejia
I think that people are born with a certain "badness" in them that they keep for the rest of their lives. Hypothetically, if you took a person and they had a perfect childhood, where no one was mean to them and everything went their way, they could still have some "bad" in them. No matter how someones life goes, they will always have some natural bad in them. For some people, like the Green River Killer, that bad is harder to control, for whatever reason. The killer may supply reasons like rage or being stepped on by women as excuses for his actions, but in reality he doesn't have an answer as to why he killed those women. Many people are angry, and sometimes even consistently angry, but they don't go on killing sprees. It is the natural "bad" in this person, which he doesn't have the ability to control, that is the real reason he murdered those women.
ReplyDeleteHowever, how would you know that their childhood was "perfect"? There are many things and people in this world that show you one face when they have a different face inside. How do you know that the person wasn't abused by someone, be it family, and boy/girlfriend, or even someone completely unrelated to them? You can never know every single detail, so you can never say that someone had a perfect child. Also, as I mentioned before, everyone is born with a dark, or "evil", side to them. It is not only the criminals that have them, so saying that a person has a "natural bad" would be just like accusing yourself of being you when you were born. It is merely because of the lack of self-control within a person that leads to criminal activities. But how do we define criminal? When someone kills another, our society shuns the perpetrator as a criminal, but a few hundred years ago, we killed people like us and believed that it was a good thing. So how can we judge what is bad and what isn't?
ReplyDeleteAdding on to what Alice, Christy and Jenny previously stating, a major theme I realize is the fact that we humans all have a gray area. Thinking of things with a scientific perspective, as I learned in biology, only hereditary traits can be passed down. This shows how humans can't possibly be born with a sense of good and bad. We all develop a moral compass as Alice stated, based on our experiences. We only know what we are exposed to. For example, a child from a very sheltered family might not even know what murder is or fully grasp that concept while a child who sees abuse and human cruelty in his/her family everyday might even have thought about committing murder.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of role models, I believe that we are greatly influenced by the people around us and they affect our lives and thoughts a great deal. For example, a familiar saying to most is "Bad company corrupts good character." I don't think that role models should receive blame though, because again going back to previous topics, we as humans have self control. Just because we see someone else doing something does not mean we should do it, but I do believe role models get some of the blame. This because they influence the people that look up to them through their actions. It's carelessness on their part to teach the people that look up to them bad things.
My opinion to what Elias and Alice are discussing is that I don't believe anyone is fit to make any kind of decision for billions of people because not every opinion or view is shown. I believe this is why we as a society have the Supreme Court and juries. Something I find really interesting is that a verdict cannot be guilty if even one person disagrees. This a great example of how people's voices are heard and how we realize that everybody has different views. Also in the Supreme Court, we have a total of 9 different judges, with 9 different lives that may affect what their way of thinking differently than each other.
Humans consider themselves superior in this world; however, religion reveals the unknown side of the human nature. From the beginning of time, people marveled and prayed to gods or spirits in the same way that different religions today have followers that believe in a certain supernatural existence. Does that highlight the inferiority of humans among those with higher status or an omniscient being such as god(s)?
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the podcast, Stanley Milgram created an experiment in which a number of ordinary participants were selected to administer electric shocks on a fellow member (paid actor) and were told of the benefits it will contribute to the scientific community. Amazingly, more than half of the participants continued to shock the fellow even when he is no longer “speaking”. Are they considered evil? (They were ordered by the scientist to continue shocking the member.) Similarly, take Hitler and the Nazi soldiers during the World War 2; they executed millions of Jews and the people of “imperfect” race (which were everyone except those having Aryan appearance)…Are all the soldiers considered to be evil? They are humans following orders from a leader who told them that their participation in this genocide will make the world become a better place. Can we justify their participation in the loss of millions?
Obedience plays an important role in both the experimental setting and the historical setting; people obey orders in believing that their contribution will be beneficial to the world, people, etc. Are they deceived by their leader or are they deceiving themselves when they perform a horrific act? Can we trust other superior people to make the “right” decisions for us?
(Analogy: good and evil can be compared as a circle, in which there isn’t a starting point or an ending point and goes around perpetually.)
In the highly controversial Milgrim experiment, people thought they were inflicting pain on others, but many continued. Why? Did they believe the experiment would really benefit society so much that they could kill someone? The person who was said to be getting the shocks, as Jenny said, was recorded pleading to stop and crying in pain. The sound was played as people flipped switches with more and more vaults. It was very convincing. People asked to stop, and the scientists pretending to take notes didn't refuse, but were indifferent and said to continue. Why did they keep on with the experiment? Was it the benefits that could come from it, or was it the voice of authority that made them keep going?
ReplyDeleteAlso, can you fault someone for doing what they thought was right. With Jenny's other example the Nazi's, not only were they listening to authority, but they truly believed that what they were doing was right. They thought it was correct to get all of the Jews somewhere far away, dead if nothing else. It is only our specific society that said that was incorrect. I think we touched upon this up in the early parts of the conversation.
I think there is more to personalities being shaped by society than just that. There have been studies that have shown that twins separated at birth and had no idea that they had a twin were very similar. There is obviously something beyond traits being shaped by society, there must be something other than that. But what is it? And why do we have it?
I also similarly agree with Jenny upon the gray region of humans. Humans are not simply born bad, but rather turn bad over a period of time. Our actions mold us into who we are as a person, and our conscience forms based upon our peers and environment. I think that everyone has some sort of dark side; that many people, even though they look happy and goody on the outside, have some form of darkness in them, no matter the size. They may have the slightest feeling of malignancy towards a certain idea or aspect. Humans sometimes wish death upon each other because of previous events that may have occurred between them or as some kind revenge to the one that had inflicted a certain emotion to us. I also agree with Alice upon the topic concerning why we are able to prevent ourselves from acts like murder. I believe that ordinary people prevent themselves from committing murder because it is a motive that is highly punishable in our society and has harsh consequences. Also, as ordinary people, we show remorse and regret, unlike murderers. I believe the term “natural-born killer” is not very accurate because the irrationality and actions of people are almost completely based upon their childhood and how they were raised. The morals that they had become acquainted to while growing up molds them into the person they will eventually become. A question I have for future commenting classmates is whether or not you believe those with mental disabilities and personality disorders should be held accountable for a violent action, like a murder.
ReplyDeleteI believe that those who possess mental disabilities and/or personality disorders should not be held accountable for the horrific acts such as murder. We as a society already pardoned and assisted those that are handicapped, dyslexic, blind, deaf, etc. through various methods since they are at a disadvantage to the ability of regular humans (no offense…objective judgment and observation). We add ramps for those in a wheelchair, use Braille in the signs for those who are blind, provide specific spaces in parking lots marked handicapped. Likewise, people with mental disabilities and personality issues struggle with their ability to control their self; are they the exceptions to the “rule”? Should we not excuse them or their acts? Are they innocent in their actions in which they no control over? Are their acts of murder intentional or accidental?
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the statement about the Nazis and Hitler, it was said that those soldiers believed that they were doing something right. It might be true, it might not. They might have been afraid of the consequences, or maybe they were really "evil" as we define it. We will never know these things for a fact, but it is definite that the Germans were desperate. They were in a depression, so they needed a scapegoat to blame for all their misfortune. Desperate people do desperate things. Is that now how even we are? This might be considered "evil" and inhumane in the eyes of society now, but the fact is that these very actions are what define us as mortal and humane. If we did not have negative emotions within us - our hate, our hubris, our anger, our fear - and all we had was our happiness, our friendship, our kindness, then we wouldn't be the diverse people we are.
ReplyDeleteAs to what Jenny said about those who possess mental disabilities or multiple personalities, I do not support any one side. It is true, that they are not in control of themselves and so, may not be conscious of what they are doing until it is over. After all, they cannot control themselves. But it is also because of this very fact that they should be isolated from others since one just cannot know when they will snap and lose control of themselves again. When that happens, people will be harmed again, and will we once again pardon the perpetrator, or will we finally condemn them after having learned our lesson from a person's death?
Also, earlier in the discussion, religion was mentioned. Religion shapes our community and the people who believe in certain gods or one god. All of our morals were derived from the religion that we believe in, or if we do not have a religion, then we gain our morals by watching others that did gain their morals and beliefs from religion. Everything in our communities was shaped by either our many sciences or by our religions. After all, beliefs must come from somewhere.
I have to go for now, so I'll come back later. :D
“Experience is the best teacher”
DeleteAlice mentioned the possibility of mentally disabled individuals committing the same crimes, and therefore, should not be readily claimed to be innocent. However, “possibility” is not defined as concrete fact; should we give people another opportunity to redeem themselves? We have discussed that people are human because of their faults and flaws within their nature; moreover, Alice also indicated that religion is founded and built on beliefs of the people…take the example of teachings of God. They say that humans commit “sins”, but they can be purified of the sins; this situation expresses their belief that there are “chances” to become “good”-to prevent themselves from performing crimes.
It is all just because of the possibility. If they snapped and killed a person once, then the chance of them killing another is higher, because we already know of their unbalanced state. And how can you say that we should definitely not punish them just because of a "what if?". But the fact is still there that they already killed once, let alone twice. Just like in Frankenstein, when Victor Frankenstein was creating the second creature, he hesitated because the first creature had already killed. He refused to create a new creature because he believed that the next creature would create more mayhem, even though the death of William wasn't the second creature's fault. That type of punishment should not be used. We should not be punishing one on the possibility of death, but rather because they already did kill someone and there is, or might be, the possibility of another murder.
DeleteWe are all attempting to understand the abstract concepts: emotions, thoughts, self control, morals, religion, and humanity through questions that do not have definite answers. We delve and explore into the human nature; Alice frequently mentioned that we are much the same as murderers, who “either cannot or don’t control the worst parts of them” and how “role models” play a significant role in the actions of their followers. Christy emphasized that humans are not “natural born killers” rather the environment that the individual experiences influence his/her actions directly or indirectly. Elias indicated that everyone has a “right decision” based upon their perspective and interpretation of concepts; Rina clearly highlighted that idolism it is the human desire of choosing an authority to follow and was the most effective technique to learn and understand. Meanwhile, Kevin shed a new light in perspective as he discusses that murderers are the victims in their own actions, whereas Nino hypothesize of a situation in which a child brought up in a perfect environment has a “seed of badness” within them. Furthermore, Abby believed that role models are not to blame on as humans have their “self control” which sets them apart from murderers, and Derrick questioned the accountability of murder committed by individuals who possess mental disorder and/or multiple personalities. Our perspectives in the topic are very diverse; perhaps, we subconsciously form these ideas we read progressively toward the end of the novel and our discussion on the questions Mr. Ferencz posted helped us engage these ideas.
ReplyDeleteTo the topic, I support Alice in the notion that these negative emotions and positive emotions are the very essence in making us human and unique. Take in consideration of the book, Giver; Lois Lowry establishes a dystopian world where its citizens were void of color, extreme emotions and thought, and equality. In this community, eccentricities in behavior, personality and appearance are strongly opposed and suppressed through means of punishment, “Release”, and medication pills; one interpretation can be in a positive light as the strict control of these emotions and behaviors prevents such violent acts of murder-an authoritative figure monitors the certain individual, whereas, another perspective reveals the negative aspect. In reference to Alice, individuals have no uniqueness and are inhumane-they possess little or none freedom and liberty to express their beliefs and ideas.
Question: Will you rather trade in your freedom and liberty for the compensation of no violent acts such as murder? In other words, do you prefer freedom/liberty and murders or risk having no freedom/liberty for the sake of the prevention of murder/evil?
As to what Jenny said about how, the people traded their freedom and unique characteristics for no violence. It is just like the story we were talking about in class. The name is not coming to mind right now, but the characters were all devoid of emotions and they were prevented from showing the abilities that made them unique. It was as if they were not even human anymore. What is a person who no longer possesses emotions of pain, hunger, desperation, or anger? They did not even possess happiness even though everyone was supposedly "equal". They were just zombies once they gave up their humanity. It was like everyone had died and been reanimated by a mad doctor who could revive bodies but had no way of retrieving the "soul". And what else is it that makes us human other than the soul that we all believe we have?
DeleteAlice also discussed thoroughly on the topic about religion, and majority of us have established the fact that humans possess “evil or bad” emotions within the human nature and conscience; religion, as Alice has implied, are formed through the foundation of beliefs, which came from somewhere. Perhaps we pray to the god or god(s) because they represent the ideal form in which humans have longed for; consider the religion Christianity…God is represented as an ethical existence in the world. He is compromised of “Good”: self control, righteousness, truth, etc. In biblical reference, Adam and Eve were created by God but disobeyed him by eating the apple; the apple symbolizes the “fall of Man”…humankind were to endure obstacles and pain/suffering including death: Adam sowed the grounds and Eve painfully bore children. Their disobedience, curiosity, and guilt present flaws and faults of humans, in which we consider to be the “essential tools of humanity”. An interesting speculation is that we continue to question our faults and flaws-including the “seed of evilness/dark emotions”- that our ancestors have searched and inquired within the human nature as well.
ReplyDeleteAdding to what Jenny said, the supposed "fall of Man" where humans were shamed and thrown away. It is true that, if that had really happened, if Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed God, then we would not have negative things in our world, such as poverty and droughts and other natural disasters. But, it did not happen, and I am glad for it because if we did not have the negative things, then I would not be myself, Jenny wouldn't be the smart Asian she is, and we all may not even be here, let alone find ourselves different people. That is why I am glad that the "fall of Man" occurred, or was said to occur, because if that wasn't true, then I wouldn't be me, and I would not have met all the people in my life that are important to me.
DeleteI think that for the most part people care for themselves as well as others if they think it is beneficial to them. For example, when someone has a child, it may not be beneficial to the amount of sleep that they get, the amount of money they are able to save, or the amount of freedom they have; but people still have kids that they think it is beneficial to them.
ReplyDeleteBut the opposite may also be true, for example in the first story, the professor was humiliated in public by someone and he felt that she should be held accountable for that. He thought that he should kill her because she made him feel bad about himself, and he determined that caring for someone who is not going to make you happy in some way is not worth caring for. This is the "dark side" of human nature, which is basically that people will feel negatively towards people who make them unhappy. That basic rule can become very large, and hateful, which might lead to the idea that killing someone else in order to sate the negative feelings is OK. I think that this rule applies to mental and physical health, if someone is beating you daily, you will probably hate that person, just as if someone is humiliating you daily, you will hate that person. Physical abuse is highlighted more in American society, and there are more laws against it, but it might just be because it is easier to spot. In the example of the woman who speculated on killing her boyfriend, she endured both physical and mental abuse, but I think what drove her so close to killing him, was the mental abuse rather than the physical. Because after the physical abuse, she kind of left, but with the mental strain of the release of something personal (sex tapes) being shared with friends is humiliating. This humiliation and pressure is what led her to almost killing someone.
Murder is definitely not something that is accepted in society, but it is so easy for people to think about. People who commit murder are only irrational in the sense that they do not care about the consequences of their actions. They do not think about what the murder will mean to them, or how it will affect the society in which the victim was incorporated in, because while a killer may hate a person, he or she probably does not hate all of that person's friends and family who have ties to him/her. This train of thought is probably coupled with thoughts of consequences of penalties that are handed out by the government. And this is what probably deters most people from carrying out murder. While some murderers may be seen as irrational, there might have been a good reason.
The story about the Green River Killer (Gary Leon Ridgeway) made my ideas about murder go out the window, because he killed people without a reason. When the investigator asked him why he wanted to kill all of the prostitutes, his answer was "I needed to because of that", and he trails off. This defies most of the reasoning stated above, and defies everything rational that I have been taught. I do not understand the killings, and I do not think in any way that they could be justified. This kind of killing is against human nature, and in fact even the investigator could not handle his reason for killing, and ended up leaving the room and weeping for the dead. He also did not talk about it until he was interview for the book on the case.
I know that there was some mention of him being stepped on by girls all his life, but I still do not understand how he could murder at least 49 women, and a speculated over 75 people.
When people kill in our world, they are desperately trying to protect themselves. Just like what you mentioned about how that woman was abused mentally and physically, she just wanted to protect herself from being hurt any further. There are also many cases, such as the one with the Green River Killer or the one with the professor, they believed that they had the right. There are many people who have developed worse personalities than ours, maybe from something that they experienced from their past life. They just end up losing some or all of their rationality and believe that no one should be allowed to humiliate them. And it is true, people should not humiliate other people on purpose, but if it was not meant just for the purpose of hurting the other, then the supposed "victim" should not go so far to kill the other. Everyone in this world has been ashamed, whether by their own doing or because someone was trying to correct them. But if everyone killed the person who humiliated them, then how many people would be left in this world?
DeleteI am amazed by the capability of humans to commit such horrific acts of nature, but more so in the endurance of humiliation and hatred they maintain with their self control. For instance, consider a situation in bullying; the victim of the harasser is constantly tormented and oppressed of physical and mental abuse that in some serious cases, they commit suicide due to depression. How can we explain this decision conducted by the tormented? How far can someone endure before they break? Is there a breaking point in every single being? If so, why do some people hurt others-is it because of their satisfaction in redeeming their abuse as well?
DeleteThere is always a breaking point within a human being. People endure as long as they want to before they break, because the true meaning of them "breaking" is when they give up struggling for a better life. Many people hurt others because they were hurt in turn; for example, the guy hurting so many women, or the professor killing the one that "humiliated" him. Suicide is a way to escape from the pain, when the person cannot stand being tormented any longer. There are cases where the person can feel that they will hurt others if they snap, and when they still possess a good conscience, they kill themselves to prevent themselves from hurting others. We do not know the true reason as to why every being turns out so different, and though we may know in the future (whether distant or near), for now we can only speculate.
DeleteWe may never know the true reason as to why every being turns out to be unique; as I said earlier in my comment, humans are complex creatures that are situated in the gray region and we can never really understand their motives and actions. Likewise, Alice also touched upon the concept of “the soul”, which exists in every individual and serves the purpose in making us diverse and human. Yes, we have progressed exponentially in our technological advancements and continue to push and test the limits of science; we are eager explorers in search of the elixir of knowledge…when we stumble upon it, we seize that opportunity.
DeleteIn reference to an episode I had watched, Morgan Freeman explains the concept of human cloning; there were mixed perspectives in that concept as it was unethical; in contrast, others believe that accomplishing such obstacle is the breakthrough in the scientific community. The part in the episode was most interesting was the demonstration of the Albert Einstein clones; there is a possibility that each clones might differ from the original Albert Einstein, in a way that they are identical in their appearance, yet unique in their personalities/ “the soul”.
ATTENTION POSTERS:
ReplyDeleteI love the fact you're participating in this discussion, but also recognize that online extra credits are a place for students who may not feel as comfortable to participate in class to have the chance to put forth their two cents in an online forum.
That being said, please refrain from excessively posting. Out of the 24 posts on this thread, 14 come from two students. Don't get me wrong, I love their effort. But for everything we say, we might be preventing someone else from saying that very idea. Allow others to have the chance to chime in before you respond.
Thanks for understanding. I love the work you're producing.
Murder is the result of various forces, such as emotion and instinct, acting upon a person or group . As humans, it is in our nature to kill because no matter what, we are still "animals". I'm not saying that this justifies all murders committed by humans since the beginning of mankind, but I believe that all human beings have a killer instinct, and however, the majority of humans are able to suppress it. Like Rina L. mentions in an earlier post, it is possible for people to be born "bad", at least in society's definition. Adding onto that, it is also possible for people to become "bad" as they mature and learn about the world around them.
ReplyDeleteSelf control plays a large role in murders - how much self control one has can determine whether or not they are able to refrain from acting aggressively towards another during an emotionally charged moment. The idea of self control can also be tied into obedience, as shown in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment. I found it incredibly interesting how many of the 'subjects' involved with the experiment willingly shocked a stranger, all due to the belief that they were, in some way, contributing to science. As Stanley Milgram mentions, these men were "...not doing what they had to, but doing it because they ought to."
Self preservation, along with self control, is connected to murders as well. If one felt threatened by another in some way (whether it be by psychological or physical means), they are likely to counteract that threat with violence. Like the lion species, humans are territorial and dependent on community, such as family, for happiness - if such factors were suddenly threatened by some outer force, one might approach solving this problem with the thought of murder. For example, in one case brought up in the podcast, a woman had almost murdered her ex-boyfriend because he had insisted on releasing their sex tapes if she decided to date another - which ultimately would have affected her social life with classmates, friends, and her family (community). Do you believe that, if this woman's ex-boyfriend had not fled, that she would have gone through with murder? If you were in the same situation as this woman, what would you have done?
If I was in the same situation, I would not have murdered him because the releasing of the sex tapes is not a valid excuse for murder. I probably would flee to another country if it was that serious. And anyone can be persuaded, so a talking to him could possibly convince him. Although violence may seem appropriate for the situation it rarely is. Only possible excuse of murder in my opinion is if that person threatens to kill or abuse you, your family, or you friends. And I think that no one is born bad, each person does not hurt someone because they were born bad. What affects their later decisions in life that could lead to murder is an abusive childhood/environment. What happened to them in their childhood, might cause them to do the same to people now as an act of revenge. A person cannot be born bad.
DeleteI believe that humans are not born bad or born good. It all depends on the environment that they live in. When humans are born, they are sort of neutral. It is the way that they are being treated by the people around them that turns them into bad people or good people. Like Max said previously, if someone is being beated everyday or being humuliated and put down everyday, you might end up hating that person and feeling the urge to kill them. Or if you were being brought up in a good environment, where there is rarely any violence, you are less likely to turn out to be a killer. Relating this back to Frankenstein, the creature had the urge to kill the people that Frankenstein loves because of the horrible treatment that he has been given by society.
ReplyDeleteAlso, humans have a dark side within them. It may not be seen because it is usually hidden deep down inside, until something really serious provokes them, and the dark side is revealed. People might do bad things or wish death upon someone because something they did seriously made them extremely angry.
Human cruelty cannot be full explained. Sometimes, humans kill because of their emotions or feelings. Like, the pod cast had mentioned with the 20-year-old female wanting to kill her ex-boyfriend for blackmailing her. Her feeling of humuliation and anger provoked the thought of planning her attack on him. Other times, human cruelty cannot be explained. For example, as Alice had mentioned in this discussion, the cruelty towards animals by humans are also very serious. This type of cruelty cannot be explained. Why would humans be angered by animals?
I also feel that many people are angered. But there are some people who cannot control their actions and end up killing. Most people only kill in that short time that they feel that it is correct. They don't think about the consequences that come after the killings. Also, humans are natural born killers because human beings are also animals and they have an instinct to kill. It is just the fact that who can control their actions and who cannot.
I agree with what Christina said, people can be born bad, but a person's childhood environment can also determine how bad a person is. The creature's inclination to kill can be part of the way he was born, murdering humans is something the creature's body is capable of. In addition to that, after being abandoned and harmed by humans, the creature learns to inflicts pain. The two combined is what makes a person murderous. Like Christy said, I also believe that a murderer at certain extent, lose self-control. Sometimes a person just believes something so much that they would lose their mind and do anything to achieve it. I also agree with what Derrick said, humans wishes death of another sometimes because of revenge. What i would like to add on to that is sometimes people just believe that their lives would be easier if the person was dead, like what the women who attempted to stab her ex-boyfriend did. Prevent oneself from murdering can require a lot of self-control like many others said. A way to do so can be like the man in the podcast, leaving the person who they with death. This way they can relax and think of their actions through with a clear-head. They can think is it worth it? What can the consequences be? How many people would be hurt? etc. Also not only irrational people are capable of murder, like Max said, irrational murderous tend to kill without thought or reason. However, those who are rational, murder for a cause.
ReplyDeleteFrom past experiences, I have seen that there are many people in this world who uncover evilness inside them when given power or the ability to do something that they believe with bring greater good. Like competition in the wilderness, humans strive for a higher standing and power. The usual purpose for this strong desire is to be able to change the world around them to fit what they believe is right.
ReplyDeleteIn the podcast, they talk about an experiment where people are told to give electric shocks to others in another room when they give an incorrect answer. The ability to shock the people in the other room is like a power that they are given. These people may truly believe that these shocks would bring about a better outcome for the people in the other room and would proceed with this in mind. There is also the creature, who was created to have a greater strength than any human. Having such strength and speed yet not destroying humankind even after they have abused him shows that the creature may even be more controlled then many humans.
Then there is the concept of good and evil. Many people have watched movies like "Superman" where there is a good guy and bad guys who are made obvious. However, in real life, this concept is not so obvious. In a murder, is the murderer really the only bad guy?
All humans are born new and untainted (not referring to disease). After birth, they start to develop behaviors from the experiences they encounter as their lives progress. There are many people who bottle up all their negative feelings from these past experiences inside of them and when someone says or does anything to tip this bottle over, the person's emotions just crash. This crash of emotions could lead them to hate the world and or one certain inhabitant. There is no one person who is just born hating someone and feeling the need to murder or harm them. This emotion of hatred happens with time.
Like Laura and Jackie that a person's childhood and environment can determine a person's personality but I also believe in what philosopher Thomas Hobbes says: in man's primitive state, he is evil. I believe that all humans are born with the ability to kill and hurt others. Like Alice said,"Human cruelty is a part of what makes us human." We all have the ability to inflict harm but most people actually won't unless they are provoked, like the woman in the podcast who almost stabbed her ex-boyfriend for blackmailing her. How and where we were raised also affects how quick we are to use violence because though we all have a dark side, life is not black and white. Like what Abby, Alice, Christy and Jenny said before, we all have a gray area. So, if someone grows up in a neighborhood where violence isn't common and have parents who also aren't violent towards them, then it's reasonable to say that the person will be less likely to use violence as a first resort. But, someone who probably grew up in a neighborhood with and constant violence and abusive parents, they maybe quicker to harm others as a first resort (sorry for saying violence so many times).
ReplyDeleteMurder isn't something only irrational people are capable of. In fact, I actually think meticulous people are more likely to commit murder. This is totally just an assumption but to me it seems like people who really think things through and are careful of details are capable of thinking up a well planned murder. But that's complete assumption and no one should take offense.
I think when the creature murdered William, he gave in to his dark side because he was provoked by all the suffering Victor Frankenstein had caused him. But when others fled from him in fear, I believed he didn't harm them because he had no reason to.
Everyone is capable of murder but it honestly depends on the person and the situation whether he/she goes through with it or not.