A Critical Review by cheryl yow
Chapter 2: Post-traumatic stress disorder. Offprint 2.
Brief report 2: The ability of naïve participants
to report symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Burges and McMillan, 2001
The abstract displays the main elements of this article
in a concise and readable manner. The research’s objective
was to find out whether successful faking of DSM-IV criteria
B-D on the PTSD symptoms checklist is due to previous
knowledge of PTSD or the leading nature of symptoms
checklists or combination. A between-groups design was
employed and naïve participants needed to self-generate
PTSD symptoms from a vignette. Then they were randomly
assigned to groups and asked to complete either a standard
symptom checklist or a checklist with PTSD bogus symptoms.
Results revealed less than 1% of self-generated symptoms
tallied with DSM-IV criteria B-D for PTSD whereas 94% of
participants fulfilled the criteria of the standard checklist and
90% on the modified checklist.34% of participants incorrectly
identified 38% of faked symptoms. The conclusion also
confirmed the significance of the findings without
overemphasising -that in spite of poor understanding
of PTSD, 94% of participants were able to successfully
realized diagnostic criteria with a standard checklist due to
‘guessing’.
The introduction explains the rationale behind the research:
the capability to fabricate PSTD symptoms. 19 of 22 survivors
seeking personal injury claims after the sinking of Aleutian
Enterprise were diagnosed with PSTD, however, when
re-interviewed by the inquiry only 4 were diagnosed with PSTD.
This highlights the possibility of diagnostic inaccuracy as
PTSD includes symptoms that are similar with other stress
disorders. People can falsify these symptoms to seek financial
compensation in the legal setting. In the self report,
symptoms are matched against a checklist and a criterion score,
thus it is easy to guess the symptoms. Clinicians were advised
to use psychometric assessments to substantiate self-report.
However, psychometric evaluation may not be effective in
discerning genuine from faked symptoms. 52 percent of
uninstructed participants were found to be able to fabricate
PTSD using Minnesota Multiphasic Personality inventory (MMPI)
(Lees-Haley,1989). Other appraisals, like the MS-PTSD measure,
was found to be ineffective in distinguishing between PTSD
cases and the impostors (Dalton et al., 1989; Frueh &
Kinder, 1994).
A previous study by Lees-Haley and Dunn (1994) examined the
capability of naïve undergraduates faking the symptoms of
generalized anxiety disorder, mild brain injury, major
depression and PSTD. Results showed high score of 97%.
However their study did not point out whether the
undergraduates’ success in faking responses is due to
preceding knowledge about the symptoms or the leading
characteristic of the checklists or a combination and the
undergraduates also did not represent the general
population in general intelligence, socio-economic group
or age. Thus, this present study endeavoured to expand
Lees-Haley and Dunn’s (1994) study by using a widely
used PTSD checklist and mock items in investigating the
ability of naïve participants to replicate PTSD symptoms.
The relevant literature and background were adequately
explained. Even by incorporating psychometric assessments to
substantiate the ineffective, subjective self-reports, PTSD
symptoms can easily be fabricated. The assessment of other
literature reviews led to the aim and the research question
at the end of the introduction: The researchers sought to
investigate whether the reason for easy fabrication of
symptoms is due to preceding knowledge of the symptoms
or it is the inherent leading cues exist in the symptoms
themselves or both. The research question is explicitly and
clearly stated. Supporting evidences from other studies were
precisely and fairly summarised and their appropriate
references were clearly cited. The rationale was well
developed and sufficient information were given in a direct,
readable manner.
The method section started with 136 participants being
recruited from night-classes at a college. A demographic
questionnaire was used to ascertain if the sample accurately
represented the general population. To assess general
intelligence, the Spot the Word test (Baddeley, Wilson,
& Nimmo-Smith,1992) was used. Participants self-generated
PSTD symptoms from a vignette of PTSD knowledge task. Then
they were assigned randomly to 2 groups to complete either
the Post-traumatic Symptoms Scale-Self report
(PSS-SR, a checklist of 17 DSM.IV symptoms of PTSD)
or a modified PSS-IR which includes 16 fake symptoms.
Participants in this between-groups design has been randomly
assigned to avoid bias. Exclusion of participants that were
clearly not naïve participants was stated. In this article a
few instruments were used: a demographic questionnaire to
ascertain the accurately represented general population, the
Spot the Word test to assess intelligence, the vignette and
lastly the Post-traumatic Symptoms Scale-Self report. All
instruments have been clearly named and stated. The
questionnaires and method used is validated and
appropriately employed to assess how easily PTSD can be
fabricated. However, it is not clear when the participants
were recruited, who recruited them, where did they
completed the tasks and who scored the questionnaires. The
exact number of males and females participants is not known.
The age range is not mentioned, it is not clear if they do
cover fully the general population as participants from night
classes may be below 55 years, thus exclusion of age was not
explicitly stated.
The results of all tests and questionnaires were succinctly
stated. From the vignette, only 1out of 134 participants
correctly guessed the PSTD criteria B-D. The accurate guesses
were hyperarousal (22%), re-experience (19%) and
avoidance/numbing symptoms (3%). When using symptoms
checklists, more than 90% attained the criteria for PTSD
diagnosis. Unrelated t tests showed no distinct differences
between groups in identifying the number of PTSD symptoms
or the number of participants attaining DSM-IV criteria for
PTSD (p> .05). Some participants incorrectly associated
all 16 fake symptoms and 50% incorrectly identified 5 fake
symptoms.
There were no significant differences between the
participant’s ages, sex and years of education or IQ test.
Pearson’s product moment correlation discerned the difference
between demographic variables showed an assumed
relatedness between years of education and IQ
( r=34; p<.001). Correlations between demographic variables,
the two PTSD knowledge variables (number of symptoms guessed
and number of symptoms guessed correctly) and the two
symptoms checklist variables ( number of PTSD symptoms
correctly checked and number of fake symptoms incorrectly
checked) revealed three distinctive outcome: in the vignette,
participants inclined to guess more accurate symptoms
( r+.50; p<.001) and on symptoms checklist they
inaccurately checked more bogus symptoms. Those who
accurately checked many PTSD symptoms also inclined to
check as many fake symptoms inaccurately. The correlation
between number of symptoms presumed accurately and
number of symptoms checked accurately was low.There
were no distinctive differences between those who claimed
to have witnessed a traumatic event and those who did not.
No distinctivedifferences found between sex of considered
male or female assault victims or between sex of participants
and sex of role-play victim. (t test, p.05)
The relevant descriptive statistics were succinctly described
and the findings seem significant however no tables were
displayed. There are many figures here but these data was not
summarised in a way that is fluid and readable.
In the discussion section, the authors have explained clearly
how the results linked to the experimental aim stated in the
introduction. The findings were related to the literature
outlined in the introduction. It built on the previous
study of Lees-Haley and Dunn (1994) who examined the
capability of naïve undergraduates faking the symptoms of
generalized anxiety disorder including PSTD. The purpose of
this study was partly a research and also partly implemented
C. Burges’ Doctorate in Clinical psychology at the University
of Surrey. The intended audience are the clinicians who
highly depended on unreliable self-report in diagnosing PTSD
patients. More females were employed because of the given
epidemiology of PTSD. Results suggested that participants
were actually ignorant about the experiences and symptoms
of PTSD although 40% of them have witnessed a traumatic
event.
On symptoms checklist, the results differs significantly
as compared to the result of the vignette - the results of
94% is similar to Lees-Haley and Dunn (1994)where 99% of
untutored undergraduates fulfilled DSM-IV criteria. In
interpreting the results three possible reasonable opinions
were given: Firstly, participants were not really ignorant
of PTSD, they were just able to recognise symptoms better
in a recognition model (symptom checklist) than in the
recalled model (vignette). However, if memory recognition
is triggered by symptom checklist than it does not explain
why participants with more prior knowledge of PTSD
were not able to distinguish the genuine and fake symptoms
better than those without experience. Secondly, the format
of the checklists might influence the participants, hence
they ticked questions without much discernment. Thirdly,
participants might just be guided by their general sense
of what they expected a PTSD patient would experience.
Evidence also showed that those who ‘guessed’ more correct
symptoms on the PTSD knowledge task and the symptom
checklist ( PSS-SR) also intuitively inaccurately
recognized more fake symptoms on the modified checklist.
This suggests face validity- which means at first sight they
seem to be appropriate indicators of PTSD. The results were
objectively and explicitly interpreted. Results indicated
that traditional symptoms checklists ( PSS-SR) can be easily
‘faked’ by naïve participants. Research on MS-PTSD scale and
the MMPI ( Dalton et.al., 1989; Frueh & Kinder, 1994;
Lees-Haley, 1989; Perconte & Goreczny, 1990) showed
similar results.
This study also proves that symptom checklists can also be
faked even when fake symptoms are included. Confounding
variables and limitation of the study has been acknowledged
and clearly stated: the exclusion of diagnosed PTSD patients
as this would help to establish more detailed and precise
symptoms of the modified checklist. The authors also
suggested that any future direction of this study
should consider a balance of the ‘real’ and ‘fake’
symptoms which is not the case here ( ‘real’ 82%, ‘bogus’ 38%).
It is also essential that the ‘fake’ items that not symptoms
of PTSD yet they should not be strikingly unrelated that
render them ‘fake.
The discussion was written objectively and the ideas were
presented in a coherent, logical and systematic manner. The
empirical evidence has clearly supported that it is easy to
replicate PTSD symptoms and this is not due to prior
knowledge rather it is due to the weakness in the symptoms
checklist.
(1658 words)
Reference
C. Burges, Department of psychology, University of Surrey,UK,
T.M. McMillan, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey
and department of Psychological medicine, university of
galsglow, Gartnavel Royal Galsgow, UK. The ability of naïve
participants to report symptoms of post-traumatic stress
disorder. British Journal of Clinical psychology,
2001, vol. 40, pp.209-14.
Tutor Comment:
Cheryl,
you have written a very good critical review
of a journal article. You started very interestingly
with a critic of the abstract section. It is very well
written giving readers a good idea of how the abstract
of the journal article is like.
Next, you went on with a good critic of the introduction.
It is very clearly written and the comment given shows
an in-depth understanding of the introduction. From there,
you went on to give a good critic of the method section
and also the result section. Your discussion section is also
very well written however, you can further improve on it by
stating if future direction of research is discussed here.
Overall this has been a well written critical review.
However you can further improve on it by giving an
introduction to your critical review. In this introduction,
you can write on the title of the journal article you are
reviewing. After that, give brief comments on why you choose
the journal article, and why it is of interest to you.
Total: 75 marks
Warmest Regards
Boon Yeow
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Psychology: Nature vs Nurture debate
essay by cheryl yow
Question:
Mr. P was a bombardier during World War II.
During his ninth mission, his airplane was severely damaged
and started to nose dive. The pilot regained control just
in time to avoid crashing the plane. However, during the
dive, Mr. P was seriously injured. After an interim recovery
period, Mr. P was sent back to duty.
On his two subsequent missions, he fainted. One analysis of
his reactions stated that his fainting was connected to deep
underlying anxieties, and that he was basically an immature
person with long standing insecurities. The near-fatal
accident was trivial.
A second analysis of Mr. P’s reactions suggests that the
fainting was a direct result of being in a situation
similar to the traumatic one previously faced.
Can both analyses be correct? Discuss.
Psychological personality theorists are increasingly
appreciating the nature and nurture debate. Is
personality determined by our genes or is it shaped
through our interaction in social contexts influenced
by the environment? Eysenck (1967) claimed that specific
part of our brain dictates our behaviours and thus our
personality is rooted in biology. In contrast to Eysenck’s
theory, Zuckermann (1995) suggests a new direction: it is
neurochemistry and associated physiology that connects
personality rather than brain anatomy. These suggest
biology shapes our personality:openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and
neuroticism (the five factors of Costa and McCrae’s
theory of personality).
The fact that Mr P was a bombardier before his accident, he
must have been through a challenging, grueling training
and had emerged as a calm and confident aviator. If we
attribute these qualities to genes than it may be
suggestive that he has ‘confident’ genes. However, his
fainting happened only after the ‘nose dive’ accident and
not before that, it is quite rational to conclude that his
fainting is due to his reaction to his past horrifying
‘nose dive’ experience of the plane. In other words, his
fainting was influenced by the environment rather than his
genes. We will look at some interesting views on the
nature versus nature debates followed by the
inadequacy of the twins’ studies of heritability;
and the famous ‘mock prison’ psychological study
that reveals the potency of the environment on human
behaviours and lastly a glimpse of the neglected idea
of ‘free will’ in the midst of nature versus
nurture debate.
Can our behaviours be due to uncontrollable genetic
impulses? Caught shooting, blame it on your genes, you might
argue ‘it runs in the family’ or argue for temporary insanity.
If drugs like Prozac, an antidepressant work by modifying the
activity of neurotransmitters, it seems realistic to believe
that inherited genes can produce chemicals and impact an
individual’s behaviour dramatically. And interestingly, in
debates surrounding cloning, there is a far-fetched
idea that a Mozart or Hilter could be re-created
through genetic cloning. Could cloning make
someone entirely identical? And if genes do
contribute to genius than how come we never heard
of the siblings of Darwin, Bach or Gandhi? On the
other hand, some deterministic models of human
behaviour try to define the role of the natural environment
– for instance some psychological biometeorologists have
found that rising summer heat lead to mounting levels of
rapes and assaults. It is also found that people most likely
make their wills in Spring, homicide rates are greatest in
the South and accidental death rates are the highest in the
Southwest. What determined our destiny? Was Mr P
not destined to die on that dreadful trip? If anything
happens, do we believe that our destinies are
predetermined, whether by genes, our environments,
or by God? And since we cannot prove the existence
of God, we are left with either – genes or the
environment.
In order to assess the impact of genetics and environment
contribution to personality, behaviour genetics used the
study of heritability. The studies of twins are prominent
in heritability. Studies on twins is based on ‘equal
environment assumption . Those rear together in the same
environment/family was assumed to be similar while those
rear apart in different environment/families was expected
to be different.In 1992 Loehlin re-analysed all the twins
findings from around the world and his findings confirmed
the estimate of neuroticism to be 0.31. Although biological
components of temperament and personality are innate to
quite a considerable degree it still account to less than 50
percent. Additionally, It is a mistaken view to assume that
children growing up in the same environment will have the
same experiences. Even within the same family each
child will react and adapt according to the influences of
the environment and these generate differences in their
behaviours resulting in their individual distinct
personalities. Children may also unwittingly assumed the
personality of their caregiver (nanny/maid) who are not the
immediate family members. Besides, parents may also try to
adjust either by matching or unmatching their children’s
behaviour in order to construct their personality. Thus
the assumptions that the environments are ‘being equal’
is questionable.
Furthermore, genes studies have provided nothing more
than tantalizing clues to discovery of genes controlling
addiction, thrill-seeking and even sexual orientation. No
one has identified a "gay gene". In Britain, King &
McDonald, working from an AIDS clinic, found 45 homosexuals
who had twins and that 25% of identical twins shared their
co-twin's homosexuality, compared with only 14% of fraternal
ones. The percentage here is low. Whereas in Scandinavia,
researchers’ study of 45,000 pairs of twins has shown that
cancer is chiefly triggered by the environment rather than
inherited genes. Colon cancer is usually link with a
faulty ‘colon cancer’ gene. This mutated gene exist
in every cell although cancer only appears in the
colon triggered by toxins produced by bacteria,
so cancer is in fact an environmental disease.
Thus, genetics cannot entirely justify the biological
differences in our behaviour. The genotype needs an
environment to interact in order to produce the phenotype.
The famous psychological study of Zimbardo (1975)
proved the powerful influence of the environment on
human behaviours. In this study, college students playing
the roles of prisoner or guard in a mock prison resulted
in a shocking revelation:
‘Less than 36 hours into the experiment prisoner
#8612 began suffering from acute emotional
disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable
crying and rage.’
( MP1, p 331)
Another prisoner of many years played the role of a
‘prison consultant’ has become the most despicable
authoritarian official. When the study ended he could not
believe it and felt sick at what he had become. Video tapes
also revealed ‘Prison guards’ ill-treating the‘prisoners’
when they believed that the experiment was off and that
researcher were no longer watching them. The role-plays were
so potent that ‘prisoners’ soon become demoralized, out of
touch with reality and began to show sign of severe stress
that the study was stopped immediately after 6 days
although planned for 2 weeks. It is disturbing to know that
ordinary, intelligent, mentally sound college students
could so easily become perpetrators of malevolence due to
the potency of environmental influences.
Though the environment remains a compelling determinant of
behaviour, the principle of the ‘nature versus nurture’
debate seems to deny the importance of ‘free will’. Human
behaviours are different from animals. Animal behaviours are
instinctive whereas humans are aware of their actions and
those of others. Instincts make behaviours the ‘puppets’ of
the environment. The rooster crows at dawn and frogs croaks
with the stimulus of rain, their behaviours were dictated by
the environment.
Humans have the fewest instincts among mammals thus we do
have behaviourial flexibility and environmental adaptability.
However culture learning ensures that behavior is similar
for members belonging to the same community. Presently,
heritability twins’ studies account to only 30%, this
evidence is not convincing whereas we have seen how potent
the ‘mock prison’ study (environment) is in the total
transformation of personality. The existence of gene does
not by itself warrant that a particular trait will be
manifested. Without the specific environments the innate
propensities cannot be fully expressed. Although it seems
more compelling to believe that the environment rather
then genes contribute more to our behaviour/personality,
the most significance thing is we are endowed with ‘free
will’. Therefore, biology may prescribe our abilities,
and the environment its manifestations but free
will still dictates what we do with these abilities.
Mr P in this case is influenced by the environment,
however, he could choose ‘free will’ to overcome his
fear. ‘Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is
dealt you represents determinism; the way you play
it is free will’. (Jawaharlal Nehru).
(1273 words)
Bibliography
Meill, D. et al, (2002). Mapping psychology 1, United
Kingdom:The open university.
Dr Kelvin Davies. ‘Nature vs Nurture revisited’.
Retrieved 6 September 2007
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
‘Nature versus Nurture’ . Retrieved 10 September 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Nature VS Nurture: How much free will do we have?
Retrieved 10 September 2007. http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl
/socpsy-2.html
Tutor Comment:
You’re one of the few who chose to respond to this question.
You did a good comparison of the nature and nurture
positions in psychology. You promoted the notion of free-will,
although strictly speaking you didn’t provide empirical
evidence to support it – as a person, you believe in the
essence and inviolability of free-will, and this carries over
to your essay. The other position you could have elaborated on
is interactionism – behavior is a result of the interaction
between genes and environment, and this can account for P’s
behavior.
Overall, a good essay!
Grade: 52/60
Question:
Mr. P was a bombardier during World War II.
During his ninth mission, his airplane was severely damaged
and started to nose dive. The pilot regained control just
in time to avoid crashing the plane. However, during the
dive, Mr. P was seriously injured. After an interim recovery
period, Mr. P was sent back to duty.
On his two subsequent missions, he fainted. One analysis of
his reactions stated that his fainting was connected to deep
underlying anxieties, and that he was basically an immature
person with long standing insecurities. The near-fatal
accident was trivial.
A second analysis of Mr. P’s reactions suggests that the
fainting was a direct result of being in a situation
similar to the traumatic one previously faced.
Can both analyses be correct? Discuss.
Psychological personality theorists are increasingly
appreciating the nature and nurture debate. Is
personality determined by our genes or is it shaped
through our interaction in social contexts influenced
by the environment? Eysenck (1967) claimed that specific
part of our brain dictates our behaviours and thus our
personality is rooted in biology. In contrast to Eysenck’s
theory, Zuckermann (1995) suggests a new direction: it is
neurochemistry and associated physiology that connects
personality rather than brain anatomy. These suggest
biology shapes our personality:openness,
conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and
neuroticism (the five factors of Costa and McCrae’s
theory of personality).
The fact that Mr P was a bombardier before his accident, he
must have been through a challenging, grueling training
and had emerged as a calm and confident aviator. If we
attribute these qualities to genes than it may be
suggestive that he has ‘confident’ genes. However, his
fainting happened only after the ‘nose dive’ accident and
not before that, it is quite rational to conclude that his
fainting is due to his reaction to his past horrifying
‘nose dive’ experience of the plane. In other words, his
fainting was influenced by the environment rather than his
genes. We will look at some interesting views on the
nature versus nature debates followed by the
inadequacy of the twins’ studies of heritability;
and the famous ‘mock prison’ psychological study
that reveals the potency of the environment on human
behaviours and lastly a glimpse of the neglected idea
of ‘free will’ in the midst of nature versus
nurture debate.
Can our behaviours be due to uncontrollable genetic
impulses? Caught shooting, blame it on your genes, you might
argue ‘it runs in the family’ or argue for temporary insanity.
If drugs like Prozac, an antidepressant work by modifying the
activity of neurotransmitters, it seems realistic to believe
that inherited genes can produce chemicals and impact an
individual’s behaviour dramatically. And interestingly, in
debates surrounding cloning, there is a far-fetched
idea that a Mozart or Hilter could be re-created
through genetic cloning. Could cloning make
someone entirely identical? And if genes do
contribute to genius than how come we never heard
of the siblings of Darwin, Bach or Gandhi? On the
other hand, some deterministic models of human
behaviour try to define the role of the natural environment
– for instance some psychological biometeorologists have
found that rising summer heat lead to mounting levels of
rapes and assaults. It is also found that people most likely
make their wills in Spring, homicide rates are greatest in
the South and accidental death rates are the highest in the
Southwest. What determined our destiny? Was Mr P
not destined to die on that dreadful trip? If anything
happens, do we believe that our destinies are
predetermined, whether by genes, our environments,
or by God? And since we cannot prove the existence
of God, we are left with either – genes or the
environment.
In order to assess the impact of genetics and environment
contribution to personality, behaviour genetics used the
study of heritability. The studies of twins are prominent
in heritability. Studies on twins is based on ‘equal
environment assumption . Those rear together in the same
environment/family was assumed to be similar while those
rear apart in different environment/families was expected
to be different.In 1992 Loehlin re-analysed all the twins
findings from around the world and his findings confirmed
the estimate of neuroticism to be 0.31. Although biological
components of temperament and personality are innate to
quite a considerable degree it still account to less than 50
percent. Additionally, It is a mistaken view to assume that
children growing up in the same environment will have the
same experiences. Even within the same family each
child will react and adapt according to the influences of
the environment and these generate differences in their
behaviours resulting in their individual distinct
personalities. Children may also unwittingly assumed the
personality of their caregiver (nanny/maid) who are not the
immediate family members. Besides, parents may also try to
adjust either by matching or unmatching their children’s
behaviour in order to construct their personality. Thus
the assumptions that the environments are ‘being equal’
is questionable.
Furthermore, genes studies have provided nothing more
than tantalizing clues to discovery of genes controlling
addiction, thrill-seeking and even sexual orientation. No
one has identified a "gay gene". In Britain, King &
McDonald, working from an AIDS clinic, found 45 homosexuals
who had twins and that 25% of identical twins shared their
co-twin's homosexuality, compared with only 14% of fraternal
ones. The percentage here is low. Whereas in Scandinavia,
researchers’ study of 45,000 pairs of twins has shown that
cancer is chiefly triggered by the environment rather than
inherited genes. Colon cancer is usually link with a
faulty ‘colon cancer’ gene. This mutated gene exist
in every cell although cancer only appears in the
colon triggered by toxins produced by bacteria,
so cancer is in fact an environmental disease.
Thus, genetics cannot entirely justify the biological
differences in our behaviour. The genotype needs an
environment to interact in order to produce the phenotype.
The famous psychological study of Zimbardo (1975)
proved the powerful influence of the environment on
human behaviours. In this study, college students playing
the roles of prisoner or guard in a mock prison resulted
in a shocking revelation:
‘Less than 36 hours into the experiment prisoner
#8612 began suffering from acute emotional
disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable
crying and rage.’
( MP1, p 331)
Another prisoner of many years played the role of a
‘prison consultant’ has become the most despicable
authoritarian official. When the study ended he could not
believe it and felt sick at what he had become. Video tapes
also revealed ‘Prison guards’ ill-treating the‘prisoners’
when they believed that the experiment was off and that
researcher were no longer watching them. The role-plays were
so potent that ‘prisoners’ soon become demoralized, out of
touch with reality and began to show sign of severe stress
that the study was stopped immediately after 6 days
although planned for 2 weeks. It is disturbing to know that
ordinary, intelligent, mentally sound college students
could so easily become perpetrators of malevolence due to
the potency of environmental influences.
Though the environment remains a compelling determinant of
behaviour, the principle of the ‘nature versus nurture’
debate seems to deny the importance of ‘free will’. Human
behaviours are different from animals. Animal behaviours are
instinctive whereas humans are aware of their actions and
those of others. Instincts make behaviours the ‘puppets’ of
the environment. The rooster crows at dawn and frogs croaks
with the stimulus of rain, their behaviours were dictated by
the environment.
Humans have the fewest instincts among mammals thus we do
have behaviourial flexibility and environmental adaptability.
However culture learning ensures that behavior is similar
for members belonging to the same community. Presently,
heritability twins’ studies account to only 30%, this
evidence is not convincing whereas we have seen how potent
the ‘mock prison’ study (environment) is in the total
transformation of personality. The existence of gene does
not by itself warrant that a particular trait will be
manifested. Without the specific environments the innate
propensities cannot be fully expressed. Although it seems
more compelling to believe that the environment rather
then genes contribute more to our behaviour/personality,
the most significance thing is we are endowed with ‘free
will’. Therefore, biology may prescribe our abilities,
and the environment its manifestations but free
will still dictates what we do with these abilities.
Mr P in this case is influenced by the environment,
however, he could choose ‘free will’ to overcome his
fear. ‘Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is
dealt you represents determinism; the way you play
it is free will’. (Jawaharlal Nehru).
(1273 words)
Bibliography
Meill, D. et al, (2002). Mapping psychology 1, United
Kingdom:The open university.
Dr Kelvin Davies. ‘Nature vs Nurture revisited’.
Retrieved 6 September 2007
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
‘Nature versus Nurture’ . Retrieved 10 September 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Nature VS Nurture: How much free will do we have?
Retrieved 10 September 2007. http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl
/socpsy-2.html
Tutor Comment:
You’re one of the few who chose to respond to this question.
You did a good comparison of the nature and nurture
positions in psychology. You promoted the notion of free-will,
although strictly speaking you didn’t provide empirical
evidence to support it – as a person, you believe in the
essence and inviolability of free-will, and this carries over
to your essay. The other position you could have elaborated on
is interactionism – behavior is a result of the interaction
between genes and environment, and this can account for P’s
behavior.
Overall, a good essay!
Grade: 52/60
Psychology: Do we have one core identity or multiple identities?
essay by cheryl yow
Question:
Does Erikson’s psychosocial theory explain identity better
than the social constructionist theory?
Psychologists are concerned with what makes us
distinctively ourselves and different from others.
Identity gives us the awareness of who we are and the
conscious continuous sense of being ourselves. Erikson’s
psychosocial theory and social constructionist theory of
identity agree that we are actively creating our identities
that are produced through social relations and there are
different aspects of our identities; however they differ in
their definition of identity – whether we have multiple
provisional identities or one stable core identity, is
identity solely social or is there a personal dimension
and do we construct or develop our identity? We will look
at what their theories advocate; the misguided view that
language is fundamental in constructing our identity
(social constructionist theory) and lastly I will attempt
to show that Erikson’s focus on the shaping of a core
identity in adolescence and its continuous development
throughout life is more convincing than Social
constructionist’s concept of having provisional multiple
identities that is constructed through language.
According to social constructionist theory, language is
fundamental in constructing our identities in our
everyday social interactions. There is no distinction
between personal and social identity. All identities are
social. Thus,we socially construct rather than develop our
identities. Our identity are multiples, provisional and
de-centred rather than singular, stable with a centred
core. On the other hand, Erikson’s psychosocial theory
shows that we have both a personal identity as well as
different aspects of our social identities. They are
interlinked because while we need to identify with a
group’s ideals we also need to be identified as a
distinct individual. Although we have a variety of
identities we integrate them into a coherent whole,
core, centred identity.
Erikson focus on continuity - the achievement of our
identity is a lifelong progressive process. In other
words, we develop rather than construct our identity.
Kenneth Gergen, a major social constructionist theorist,
gave an account of his childhood. He recounted how he grew
up with fountain pens and associated ‘pen’ with his
identity which meant ‘I am a writer’. He claimed that his
identity changed dramatically when he was given a computer
and only used his pen for signing. This recount is not
convincing. The essence of him is a writer - a writer is
someone who has creative, convincing ways of translating
ideas into words regardless of whether he writes or types,
his identity of a writer should not be defined solely by
‘pen’. In fact, Erikson’s theory would explain that he
developed his sense of a writer in his adolescence
through his mother’s inspirational writings and father’s
mathematical scribbles and that he was influenced by their
social status through publishing their works. Thus, his
personal identity as a writer was shaped and developed
through his adolescence rather then merely his association
with the word ‘pen’.
In addition, social constructionists cite a famous example
of Nelson Mandela, the first president of post-apartheid
South Africa to illustrate how we use language to construct
our identities. Nelson Mandela was defined as a ‘terrorist’
when he was imprisoned by the white South African state
and when he was released from prison he was redefined as
a ‘freedom fighter’ by the society. Although this does
illustrate language play an important role in communicating
our identity, it does not prove significantly that our
identity are solely dictated by words imposed on us by the
society, there must be a core dimension of us that decides
who we really are, beyond the masks we wear for the roles
we played in the society. There is a great difference
between the ‘roles’ we play in life and the real identity
we have.
When Nelson Mandela was in prison, stripped off his
‘multiple’ social identities and cut off from social
relations, was he just an empty shell without a core
identity or is there still a core identity within the
depth of him? If so, we cannot agree that ‘all identities
are social and not personal’. Although society labelled
Nelson Mandela as a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘freedom fighter’,
it is reasonable to think that there is a stable core
identity deep within him that decides his identity is
neither a ‘terrorist’ nor a ‘freedom fighter’ but perhaps
a ‘protector of human rights’ instead. Language is fluid
resulting in unstable and ambiguous definition of our
identity. Only the personal core identity in us is able
to redefine the essence of us more accurately.
This proves that language alone is not adequately sufficient
to construct our identities. As we do not have enough words
to express the complexity of human nature. Part of our inner
worlds may not be assessable to our consciousness. We use
only less than 5% of our brain, it is impossible to know
what lies beneath it. ‘Who am I?’ cannot be easily
constructed just by language even though we agree that
language helps us to communicate our identity.
Critics argue that Erikson overemphasized adolescence as
a significant time where our core identity is formed.
Erikson suggested that youths go through a period of
identity crisis where they try out various identities
until they find their niche in the society resulting in
achievement of their ego identity. Ego development is
important as we cannot remain sane without the sense of
‘I’. This act of self definition rather than ‘prescribed
roles’ is essential. Adolescent development that helps
us answer the complex question, "Who am I?" requires
organization of the individual's beliefs, abilities,
drives, and history into a view of oneself. Erikson uses
psychoanalysis to develop richly detailed biographical
histories of great leaders like Thomas Jefferson,
Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi and these biographies
supported Erikson’s eight development stages from
experiencing trust/mistrust to fulfilment/disappointment
in life. Erikson asserted that identity development is not
exclusively formed in adolescence, it is shaped in
adolescence and continue to change and develop while
maintaining the core identity.
We cannot deny the significant impact of childhood in our
lives. We encounter many of our ‘first’ experiences during
these years – our first friend, our first job or our first
kiss – these are perhaps the most impressionable,
influential years of our life. It is reasonable to believe
that they must have significantly impacted our identity. We
see older people or people who are dying often trying to
return to their roots anchored in their childhood. People
suffering from aids or cancer who are told they are going
to die soon; instantly they are stripped off their roles in
the society, could perhaps vouch for one personal core
identity to give meaning to their life.
Although language do help us to communicate our social
identities, we have seen that language alone is not reliable
to give complete and accurate construction of identity.
Social constructionist focus on our numerous, provisional
identities without a personal stable core identity seem to
reduce our state of mind to those who are often considered
as having mental illness. In our social life we communicate
from the default assumption that there is a thread that
binds the different acts of a single individual together
into a whole consistent person. Erikson’s theory advocates
that a sense of continuity of our individual
distinctiveness is important. To achieve this continuous
sense of who we are we need to develop a stable, consistent
and reliable sense of what we stand for in the society.
Whether our reality is natural or illusionary, Erikson's
psychosocial theory is a positive and meaningful concept.
It show us life is a series of lessons and challenges which
help us to grow. ‘To truly meet others with whom to share
a “We”, one must have a sense of “I”’ (Erik Erikson,
The Life Cycle Completed).
(1275 words)
Tutor Comment:
You argue passionately!
Grade 92
Bibliography
Meill, D. et al, (2002). Mapping psychology 1, United Kingdom:
The open university
Pertti, A.(2004). Social Theory and Human Reality, London:
GBR: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kroger, J.(1996). Identity in Adolescence : The Balance Between Self and Other,USA: Routledge.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/simlib/Doc?id=5001602&ppg=127
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/simlib/Doc?id=10076720&ppg=127
http://www.businessballs.com/erik_erikson_psychosocial_theory.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/erik-erikson?cat=health
http://www.nndb.com/people/151/000097857/
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11138_Chaper_5.pdf
Question:
Does Erikson’s psychosocial theory explain identity better
than the social constructionist theory?
Psychologists are concerned with what makes us
distinctively ourselves and different from others.
Identity gives us the awareness of who we are and the
conscious continuous sense of being ourselves. Erikson’s
psychosocial theory and social constructionist theory of
identity agree that we are actively creating our identities
that are produced through social relations and there are
different aspects of our identities; however they differ in
their definition of identity – whether we have multiple
provisional identities or one stable core identity, is
identity solely social or is there a personal dimension
and do we construct or develop our identity? We will look
at what their theories advocate; the misguided view that
language is fundamental in constructing our identity
(social constructionist theory) and lastly I will attempt
to show that Erikson’s focus on the shaping of a core
identity in adolescence and its continuous development
throughout life is more convincing than Social
constructionist’s concept of having provisional multiple
identities that is constructed through language.
According to social constructionist theory, language is
fundamental in constructing our identities in our
everyday social interactions. There is no distinction
between personal and social identity. All identities are
social. Thus,we socially construct rather than develop our
identities. Our identity are multiples, provisional and
de-centred rather than singular, stable with a centred
core. On the other hand, Erikson’s psychosocial theory
shows that we have both a personal identity as well as
different aspects of our social identities. They are
interlinked because while we need to identify with a
group’s ideals we also need to be identified as a
distinct individual. Although we have a variety of
identities we integrate them into a coherent whole,
core, centred identity.
Erikson focus on continuity - the achievement of our
identity is a lifelong progressive process. In other
words, we develop rather than construct our identity.
Kenneth Gergen, a major social constructionist theorist,
gave an account of his childhood. He recounted how he grew
up with fountain pens and associated ‘pen’ with his
identity which meant ‘I am a writer’. He claimed that his
identity changed dramatically when he was given a computer
and only used his pen for signing. This recount is not
convincing. The essence of him is a writer - a writer is
someone who has creative, convincing ways of translating
ideas into words regardless of whether he writes or types,
his identity of a writer should not be defined solely by
‘pen’. In fact, Erikson’s theory would explain that he
developed his sense of a writer in his adolescence
through his mother’s inspirational writings and father’s
mathematical scribbles and that he was influenced by their
social status through publishing their works. Thus, his
personal identity as a writer was shaped and developed
through his adolescence rather then merely his association
with the word ‘pen’.
In addition, social constructionists cite a famous example
of Nelson Mandela, the first president of post-apartheid
South Africa to illustrate how we use language to construct
our identities. Nelson Mandela was defined as a ‘terrorist’
when he was imprisoned by the white South African state
and when he was released from prison he was redefined as
a ‘freedom fighter’ by the society. Although this does
illustrate language play an important role in communicating
our identity, it does not prove significantly that our
identity are solely dictated by words imposed on us by the
society, there must be a core dimension of us that decides
who we really are, beyond the masks we wear for the roles
we played in the society. There is a great difference
between the ‘roles’ we play in life and the real identity
we have.
When Nelson Mandela was in prison, stripped off his
‘multiple’ social identities and cut off from social
relations, was he just an empty shell without a core
identity or is there still a core identity within the
depth of him? If so, we cannot agree that ‘all identities
are social and not personal’. Although society labelled
Nelson Mandela as a ‘terrorist’ or a ‘freedom fighter’,
it is reasonable to think that there is a stable core
identity deep within him that decides his identity is
neither a ‘terrorist’ nor a ‘freedom fighter’ but perhaps
a ‘protector of human rights’ instead. Language is fluid
resulting in unstable and ambiguous definition of our
identity. Only the personal core identity in us is able
to redefine the essence of us more accurately.
This proves that language alone is not adequately sufficient
to construct our identities. As we do not have enough words
to express the complexity of human nature. Part of our inner
worlds may not be assessable to our consciousness. We use
only less than 5% of our brain, it is impossible to know
what lies beneath it. ‘Who am I?’ cannot be easily
constructed just by language even though we agree that
language helps us to communicate our identity.
Critics argue that Erikson overemphasized adolescence as
a significant time where our core identity is formed.
Erikson suggested that youths go through a period of
identity crisis where they try out various identities
until they find their niche in the society resulting in
achievement of their ego identity. Ego development is
important as we cannot remain sane without the sense of
‘I’. This act of self definition rather than ‘prescribed
roles’ is essential. Adolescent development that helps
us answer the complex question, "Who am I?" requires
organization of the individual's beliefs, abilities,
drives, and history into a view of oneself. Erikson uses
psychoanalysis to develop richly detailed biographical
histories of great leaders like Thomas Jefferson,
Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandhi and these biographies
supported Erikson’s eight development stages from
experiencing trust/mistrust to fulfilment/disappointment
in life. Erikson asserted that identity development is not
exclusively formed in adolescence, it is shaped in
adolescence and continue to change and develop while
maintaining the core identity.
We cannot deny the significant impact of childhood in our
lives. We encounter many of our ‘first’ experiences during
these years – our first friend, our first job or our first
kiss – these are perhaps the most impressionable,
influential years of our life. It is reasonable to believe
that they must have significantly impacted our identity. We
see older people or people who are dying often trying to
return to their roots anchored in their childhood. People
suffering from aids or cancer who are told they are going
to die soon; instantly they are stripped off their roles in
the society, could perhaps vouch for one personal core
identity to give meaning to their life.
Although language do help us to communicate our social
identities, we have seen that language alone is not reliable
to give complete and accurate construction of identity.
Social constructionist focus on our numerous, provisional
identities without a personal stable core identity seem to
reduce our state of mind to those who are often considered
as having mental illness. In our social life we communicate
from the default assumption that there is a thread that
binds the different acts of a single individual together
into a whole consistent person. Erikson’s theory advocates
that a sense of continuity of our individual
distinctiveness is important. To achieve this continuous
sense of who we are we need to develop a stable, consistent
and reliable sense of what we stand for in the society.
Whether our reality is natural or illusionary, Erikson's
psychosocial theory is a positive and meaningful concept.
It show us life is a series of lessons and challenges which
help us to grow. ‘To truly meet others with whom to share
a “We”, one must have a sense of “I”’ (Erik Erikson,
The Life Cycle Completed).
(1275 words)
Tutor Comment:
You argue passionately!
Grade 92
Bibliography
Meill, D. et al, (2002). Mapping psychology 1, United Kingdom:
The open university
Pertti, A.(2004). Social Theory and Human Reality, London:
GBR: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kroger, J.(1996). Identity in Adolescence : The Balance Between Self and Other,USA: Routledge.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/simlib/Doc?id=5001602&ppg=127
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/simlib/Doc?id=10076720&ppg=127
http://www.businessballs.com/erik_erikson_psychosocial_theory.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/erik-erikson?cat=health
http://www.nndb.com/people/151/000097857/
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/11138_Chaper_5.pdf
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
France in 1789 - The Royal Decree
essay by cheryl yow
Question the value of this document ( below)
for a historian writing a study of ‘France in 1789’
The extract:
The king, in sending letters of convocation to the Estates
General to the different provinces within his obedience,
desires that his subjects should all be called to take
part in the election of the deputies who are to form this
great and solemn assembly.
His Majesty wishes that everyone, from the extremities of
his realm and from the most remote dwelling places, may be
assured that his desires and claims will reach his Majesty.
His Majesty has further endeavoured to achieve this special
object of his care by summoning to the assemblies of the
clergy all the good and useful pastors who are in close
and daily contact with the poverty and relief of the people
and are most intimately acquainted with their fears and
their anxieties.
The king, in arranging the order of the convocations and
the structure of the assemblies, wished as far as possible
to follow the old traditions. Guided by this principle, His
Majesty has preserved the time- honoured privilege for all
bailliages who had send a representative to the 1614
estates general to do so again.
His Majesty expects above all that only the voice of
conscience will be heard in the choice of deputies to the
Estates General. Therefore His Majesty has commanded
and commands the following:
Each order shall draw up a list of grievances
(cahier de doleances). And choose its deputies
separately, unless they prefer to do so jointly,
in which case the consent of the three orders,
obtained separately, will be needed.
Given and decreed by the king in his council at
Versailles, 24 January 1789.
Signed: LOUIS
( Richard Cobb and Colin Jones (eds.),
(The French revolution:
Voices From A Momentous Epoch 1789-1795, p.28)
The royal decree of 24 January 1789 is an official order
by the French king instructing the people to elect their
deputies. The historian writing a study of
‘France in 1789’ should consider the value of this decree;
by analysing the strength and weakness of the date, the
source and credibility of the creator. Special attention
is needed to tease out the unusual words and its implicit
messages.
Firstly, we need to verify the authenticity of the document
and relevance of the date. Being an official ‘open’ document
of record made it automatically reliable. Although based
solely on this source we cannot ascertain the election did
really take place but we can be sure by its existence
records the king’s instruction did take place. The date;
24 Janauary 1789 was a significant period for election to
the estate General which had last met in 1614.
Secondly, we need to establish the credibility and
intention of the creator of the source. Necker, the writer
was the king’s principal minister, seen as a champion
of traditional regulation was popular with all classes.
His intention was probably to be balanced and accurate in
outlining the king’s order as well as sensitive to any
potential negative reaction, as not to further provoke
the existing intense tension between the king and the
people. His style of writing is formal, articulated
and the tone is balanced. The strength of this document
is based on it being an official ‘open’ public
‘document of record’ decreed by the king and the
credibility of the author; is deemed to be an accurate
primary source.
However, we need to consider its limitations: Did the
election actually take place? What were the percentages
of people who had taken part in the election or was there a
manipulation dominated by factions? To discern the above
weakness, more of other sources from the archives or
record offices of the French provinces are needed.
Next, to illuminate the precise message of the decree to
contemporaries, we have to tease out all obscure references
and technical terms. The phrase ‘different provinces
within his obedience’, we need to ascertain were ‘all’
French provinces included or only the selected provinces?
What is ‘from the extremities of his realm’ referring to?
And where exactly were these ‘remote dwelling places’?
Since 95% made up the third estate, most of the poor would
most likely lived in these remote places. The phrase
‘ all the good and useful pastors’- what kind of support
specifically was provided to help the poor?
It is important to find what these ‘old traditions’ were
referring to and why were they considered reliable and
substantial? What specifically were these ‘voice of
conscience’ referring to?
Finally, we need to work out the distinct differences of the
writing (intentional) and unwitting (unintentional) messages
of the source to discern its hidden information. The witting
message here is the king’s intention to gather the three orders
with their lists of grievances to attend a meeting and to
elect their own deputies. They had the choice of choosing
their deputies separately or if they prefer, jointly. The
king also summoned the pastors who had work closely with
the poor on a daily basis to the convocation.
Unwittingly ( unintentional message), as I have observed;
‘His majesty’ and ‘The King’ begins most paragraphs, does
strongly etched in our minds the king was still very much
in control. By getting everyone to attend ‘this great and
solemn assembly’ suggest the ‘seriousness’ of the
‘first gathering’ of the 3 orders. The king in assuring that
everyone’s desires would be heard, we can assume that only
certain groups were able to exclusively relate their
concerns to the king. We get the impression that the clergy
were rarely actively helping the poor. ‘only the voice of
the conscience’ seems to hint at the existing manipulation
of certain people of high social status and who did not
discharge their responsibilities adequately. His majesty in
wishing to follow the ‘old traditions’ indicates that the
old traditions seem to be fading away and the new reforms
might not be as effective as the old traditions.
Curiously enough, the word ‘separately’ appears twice
and ‘jointly’ appeared briefly, could reveal that the king
preferred the orders to choose their deputies separately.
I think having orders separated the king would have more
control; should any disagreement arises, the whole
population as one group can easily assert control over
the king’s authority.
In analysing this document the historian should focus
on the date/document, the intention and credibility of the
creator and the ability to discern unwitting testimony
is absolutely crucial.
(854 words)
Question the value of this document ( below)
for a historian writing a study of ‘France in 1789’
The extract:
The king, in sending letters of convocation to the Estates
General to the different provinces within his obedience,
desires that his subjects should all be called to take
part in the election of the deputies who are to form this
great and solemn assembly.
His Majesty wishes that everyone, from the extremities of
his realm and from the most remote dwelling places, may be
assured that his desires and claims will reach his Majesty.
His Majesty has further endeavoured to achieve this special
object of his care by summoning to the assemblies of the
clergy all the good and useful pastors who are in close
and daily contact with the poverty and relief of the people
and are most intimately acquainted with their fears and
their anxieties.
The king, in arranging the order of the convocations and
the structure of the assemblies, wished as far as possible
to follow the old traditions. Guided by this principle, His
Majesty has preserved the time- honoured privilege for all
bailliages who had send a representative to the 1614
estates general to do so again.
His Majesty expects above all that only the voice of
conscience will be heard in the choice of deputies to the
Estates General. Therefore His Majesty has commanded
and commands the following:
Each order shall draw up a list of grievances
(cahier de doleances). And choose its deputies
separately, unless they prefer to do so jointly,
in which case the consent of the three orders,
obtained separately, will be needed.
Given and decreed by the king in his council at
Versailles, 24 January 1789.
Signed: LOUIS
( Richard Cobb and Colin Jones (eds.),
(The French revolution:
Voices From A Momentous Epoch 1789-1795, p.28)
The royal decree of 24 January 1789 is an official order
by the French king instructing the people to elect their
deputies. The historian writing a study of
‘France in 1789’ should consider the value of this decree;
by analysing the strength and weakness of the date, the
source and credibility of the creator. Special attention
is needed to tease out the unusual words and its implicit
messages.
Firstly, we need to verify the authenticity of the document
and relevance of the date. Being an official ‘open’ document
of record made it automatically reliable. Although based
solely on this source we cannot ascertain the election did
really take place but we can be sure by its existence
records the king’s instruction did take place. The date;
24 Janauary 1789 was a significant period for election to
the estate General which had last met in 1614.
Secondly, we need to establish the credibility and
intention of the creator of the source. Necker, the writer
was the king’s principal minister, seen as a champion
of traditional regulation was popular with all classes.
His intention was probably to be balanced and accurate in
outlining the king’s order as well as sensitive to any
potential negative reaction, as not to further provoke
the existing intense tension between the king and the
people. His style of writing is formal, articulated
and the tone is balanced. The strength of this document
is based on it being an official ‘open’ public
‘document of record’ decreed by the king and the
credibility of the author; is deemed to be an accurate
primary source.
However, we need to consider its limitations: Did the
election actually take place? What were the percentages
of people who had taken part in the election or was there a
manipulation dominated by factions? To discern the above
weakness, more of other sources from the archives or
record offices of the French provinces are needed.
Next, to illuminate the precise message of the decree to
contemporaries, we have to tease out all obscure references
and technical terms. The phrase ‘different provinces
within his obedience’, we need to ascertain were ‘all’
French provinces included or only the selected provinces?
What is ‘from the extremities of his realm’ referring to?
And where exactly were these ‘remote dwelling places’?
Since 95% made up the third estate, most of the poor would
most likely lived in these remote places. The phrase
‘ all the good and useful pastors’- what kind of support
specifically was provided to help the poor?
It is important to find what these ‘old traditions’ were
referring to and why were they considered reliable and
substantial? What specifically were these ‘voice of
conscience’ referring to?
Finally, we need to work out the distinct differences of the
writing (intentional) and unwitting (unintentional) messages
of the source to discern its hidden information. The witting
message here is the king’s intention to gather the three orders
with their lists of grievances to attend a meeting and to
elect their own deputies. They had the choice of choosing
their deputies separately or if they prefer, jointly. The
king also summoned the pastors who had work closely with
the poor on a daily basis to the convocation.
Unwittingly ( unintentional message), as I have observed;
‘His majesty’ and ‘The King’ begins most paragraphs, does
strongly etched in our minds the king was still very much
in control. By getting everyone to attend ‘this great and
solemn assembly’ suggest the ‘seriousness’ of the
‘first gathering’ of the 3 orders. The king in assuring that
everyone’s desires would be heard, we can assume that only
certain groups were able to exclusively relate their
concerns to the king. We get the impression that the clergy
were rarely actively helping the poor. ‘only the voice of
the conscience’ seems to hint at the existing manipulation
of certain people of high social status and who did not
discharge their responsibilities adequately. His majesty in
wishing to follow the ‘old traditions’ indicates that the
old traditions seem to be fading away and the new reforms
might not be as effective as the old traditions.
Curiously enough, the word ‘separately’ appears twice
and ‘jointly’ appeared briefly, could reveal that the king
preferred the orders to choose their deputies separately.
I think having orders separated the king would have more
control; should any disagreement arises, the whole
population as one group can easily assert control over
the king’s authority.
In analysing this document the historian should focus
on the date/document, the intention and credibility of the
creator and the ability to discern unwitting testimony
is absolutely crucial.
(854 words)
Architecture: The Colosseum
Essay by cheryl yow
An introduction to the Humanities 1.
AZS1031. TMA02. 2006
Question:
The writer of Unit 6 states that the Colosseum was designed
‘ to cope with problems’ ( block 2, p. 50).
Consider three potential functional problems
and how the architects solved them.
The feat of planning and constructing the Colosseum, such
a massive and impressive building seemed daunting. Roman
architects needed to consider three potential functional
problems: accommodating a large number of people and
animals; safety and visibility of the spectators;
efficient facilities for both the spectators and the
performers.
Firstly, a solid structure is needed to support the piers,
walls and vaults. The thick piers were built by different
building materials: travertine, tufa and concrete described
in plate 72 (illustration book, TV 6)in order to support
the wide arches, walls and corridors. The concrete vaults
were built by layers of cement mixed with rubbles.
Foundations are of sufficient depth to support the
load-bearing walls and piers.
Secondly, safety and optimum visibility were important
considerations. The Colosseum could accommodate up to
50,000 spectators! The complicated arrangements of the
staircases and passages seen on plates 56/57/58
(illustration book) were carefully planned to ensure easy
and orderly entry and exit through the seventy-six
entrances. Seats were arranged around the arena in
continuous layered rows so that there would be no
obstruction. No pillar was built between spectators
and spectacle. Spectators were separated from the arena
by a balustrade.
Thirdly, they required the necessary facilities for the
spectators and the performers. Water was provided through
pipes that led to drinking fountains. A vast sun-shade
provided shelter. Below the arena a network of cells
(seen on plates 46/48, illustration book) were constructed
to securely store animals, prisoners and props along with
appropriate entrances and exits for the performers and the
disposed; and also workplaces and cleaning rooms for the
service personnel.
The Roman engineer, Vitruvius, labelled ‘commodity’,
‘firmness’ and ‘delight’ as three requirements of
architecture (block 24, p.54). Roman architects’ plan of
the Colosseum was meticulously and effectively designed to
accommodate a large crowd, to provide safety and visibility
as well as the necessary facilities with a pleasing appearance
to ‘delight’.
(313 words)
Bibliography:
Block 2, The Colosseum
Illustration book
TV 6
An introduction to the Humanities 1.
AZS1031. TMA02. 2006
Question:
The writer of Unit 6 states that the Colosseum was designed
‘ to cope with problems’ ( block 2, p. 50).
Consider three potential functional problems
and how the architects solved them.
The feat of planning and constructing the Colosseum, such
a massive and impressive building seemed daunting. Roman
architects needed to consider three potential functional
problems: accommodating a large number of people and
animals; safety and visibility of the spectators;
efficient facilities for both the spectators and the
performers.
Firstly, a solid structure is needed to support the piers,
walls and vaults. The thick piers were built by different
building materials: travertine, tufa and concrete described
in plate 72 (illustration book, TV 6)in order to support
the wide arches, walls and corridors. The concrete vaults
were built by layers of cement mixed with rubbles.
Foundations are of sufficient depth to support the
load-bearing walls and piers.
Secondly, safety and optimum visibility were important
considerations. The Colosseum could accommodate up to
50,000 spectators! The complicated arrangements of the
staircases and passages seen on plates 56/57/58
(illustration book) were carefully planned to ensure easy
and orderly entry and exit through the seventy-six
entrances. Seats were arranged around the arena in
continuous layered rows so that there would be no
obstruction. No pillar was built between spectators
and spectacle. Spectators were separated from the arena
by a balustrade.
Thirdly, they required the necessary facilities for the
spectators and the performers. Water was provided through
pipes that led to drinking fountains. A vast sun-shade
provided shelter. Below the arena a network of cells
(seen on plates 46/48, illustration book) were constructed
to securely store animals, prisoners and props along with
appropriate entrances and exits for the performers and the
disposed; and also workplaces and cleaning rooms for the
service personnel.
The Roman engineer, Vitruvius, labelled ‘commodity’,
‘firmness’ and ‘delight’ as three requirements of
architecture (block 24, p.54). Roman architects’ plan of
the Colosseum was meticulously and effectively designed to
accommodate a large crowd, to provide safety and visibility
as well as the necessary facilities with a pleasing appearance
to ‘delight’.
(313 words)
Bibliography:
Block 2, The Colosseum
Illustration book
TV 6
The Romans' Arena
Essay by cheryl yow
Question:
The writers of Block 2 state that there was a
‘general lack of concern among ancient writers
for the suffering of the condemned’
Why do you think this is the case?
Drawing on both ancient and modern sources,
discuss Roman attitude towards the activities in the arena.
Roman public displays of punishing the condemned
were highly sensational, lavish and extravagant;
however it caused humiliation, cruelty and bloodshed.
Death had become a specatacle in this theatrical sense.
The educated elite class had the liberty to express their finer
feelings by showing contempt on these inhuman displays of
cruelty. What seems alarming is that although philosophers
did address their concern, their focus was towards the
harmful effects on the spectators rather than those
condemned. Though we might find their lack of
compassion distasteful, we need to understand how they
were conditioned to such an extent due to clever
manipulation of the emperor, their sense of justice; their
fascination with such sensational shows; and crowd
psychology; all these formed and shaped their values,
attitudes and ethics that gave birth to the distinct
Roman culture.
Public punishments were witnessed by the diversity of the
Romans; each with an important role to play: the decision
of the condemned’s death or social rebirth, and the emperor
chose to fulfil their collective desire. This unity
consolidated Roman identity and demonstrated the imperial
power.
‘ Whatever the crises of an emperor’s reign and threats to
the stability of his regime, there were people and animals
available for the sacrifice who, by dying violently, would
earn his popular acclaim and demonstrate his authority over
life and death’.(K. M. Coleman, RBK 1. C16, p.120)
In this sense, the emperor was able to manipulate his people
(in which a large part of them were illiterate) by giving
them an important role to feed their social identity with
his magnanimous spirit.
Suetonius, a Roman imperial secretary, who was only ten
years old, when he wrote:
‘ The whole body of the people in particular he treated
with such indulgence on all occasions that once at a
gladiatorial show he declared that he would give it,
‘not after his own inclination but those of the spectators;
and what is more he kept his word’.(RBK 1, C5, p. 96)
This value and belief (that the Roman kings were
generous and admired for indulging his people with such
sensational shows of bloodshed) were instilled into a child
as young as Suetonius.
Prisoners were considered degraded, polluted and
condemnable beings, they had no place in the society.
They were considered below humanity, they had even lower
status than animals. Compassion was shown for the animals
rather than the condemned - Statius, a writer wrote:
‘...people and Senate mourned in sorrow to see thee die...,
beasts so cheaply slain,
the loss of one lion alone drew a tear
from mighty Caesar’s eye’.
(RBK 1, C7. P.98)
However, justice was given. Prisoners were given the
possibility of rebirth, so that the dead can live again
through bravery, the virtue much respected in the Roman
society. Cicero expressed his feelings that the combats
and courage shown were lessons in good Roman virtues:
‘ These gladiators, these rogues, these barbarians,
to what lengths do they carry their strength of mind’.
(RBK1 C8, p.98).The pain inflicted had to be
commensurate with the sufferings the prisoners had
caused. The pain inflicted on the prisoners was meant
to degrade and humiliate him to ensure proper social
order is being restored.
Games were set to sensationalise with the ingredients of:
power, sex, violence, cruelty, madness, depravity in
gaudy, flashy, threatrical showy displays. The
punishments included: throwing prisoners to wild beasts;
gladiatorial battles, women battling with cripples and
dwarves; women copulating with bull, dressing up prisoners
to enact mythological stories of famous scenes of death
and suffering.
Additionally, the sexually attractive and charismatic
gladiators are most Roman women’s secret fantasy.
According to Keith Hopkins, he suggests that there is a close
link in the Roman minds between gladiatorial fighting and sexuality
(RBK 1 C14, p.113). Thomas Wiedemann observed that
these shows:
‘...like strip-tease shows, tended to engage the
emotions of the on-lookers to an extent that made them
temporarily incapable of rational thoughts'(RBK 1, C11, p.102).
‘ What was it, asked Tertullian, which transformed men who
were timid and peaceable enough in private and made them
shout gleefully for the merciless destruction
of their fellow men?’( Keith Hopkins, RBK 1 C 14, p. 114)
Seneca, a philosopher highlighted the impact of the harmful
effects of these displays of extreme cruelty on the
audience, damaging their soul and spirituality. Being in
a crowd, he claimed bound to influence us with some vices:
‘Indeed there is nothing so damaging to good character as
to take a seat at a show, for then faults sneak up on us
easily through our enjoyment. Do you think I mean that I
go home more greedy, more ambitious, more self-indulgent?
Yes- and more cruel and inhuman
because I have been among humans’.
( RBK 1, C9, p.99)
St. Augustine, another philosopher wrote of how he was at
first most reluctant to attend these cruel displays but
after witnessing the show for the first time he started to
have an extraordinary craving: seething with the lust for
cruelty:
‘ When he saw blood, it was as though he had drunk
a deep draught of savage passion. Instead of turning away,
he fixed his eyes upon the scene and drank in all its frenzy,
unaware of what he was doing’.
(RBK1, C10, p.100)
Pearson wrote ‘This was a vulgar age’ ( RBK1 C12). We might
expressed qualms of the experiences and attitudes of the
Romans- of their sense of justice and democracy however
we need to assess them through Roman’s ancient values that
were build on the idea of public punishment- to assure the
certainty of the punishment and a sense of social order
which leads to such sensational displays of cruelty though
clever manipulation of the emperor and the seduction of
crowd’s psychology.
(927 words)
Bibliography:
Block 2- The Colosseum
Resource Book 1 ( RBK1)
Question:
The writers of Block 2 state that there was a
‘general lack of concern among ancient writers
for the suffering of the condemned’
Why do you think this is the case?
Drawing on both ancient and modern sources,
discuss Roman attitude towards the activities in the arena.
Roman public displays of punishing the condemned
were highly sensational, lavish and extravagant;
however it caused humiliation, cruelty and bloodshed.
Death had become a specatacle in this theatrical sense.
The educated elite class had the liberty to express their finer
feelings by showing contempt on these inhuman displays of
cruelty. What seems alarming is that although philosophers
did address their concern, their focus was towards the
harmful effects on the spectators rather than those
condemned. Though we might find their lack of
compassion distasteful, we need to understand how they
were conditioned to such an extent due to clever
manipulation of the emperor, their sense of justice; their
fascination with such sensational shows; and crowd
psychology; all these formed and shaped their values,
attitudes and ethics that gave birth to the distinct
Roman culture.
Public punishments were witnessed by the diversity of the
Romans; each with an important role to play: the decision
of the condemned’s death or social rebirth, and the emperor
chose to fulfil their collective desire. This unity
consolidated Roman identity and demonstrated the imperial
power.
‘ Whatever the crises of an emperor’s reign and threats to
the stability of his regime, there were people and animals
available for the sacrifice who, by dying violently, would
earn his popular acclaim and demonstrate his authority over
life and death’.(K. M. Coleman, RBK 1. C16, p.120)
In this sense, the emperor was able to manipulate his people
(in which a large part of them were illiterate) by giving
them an important role to feed their social identity with
his magnanimous spirit.
Suetonius, a Roman imperial secretary, who was only ten
years old, when he wrote:
‘ The whole body of the people in particular he treated
with such indulgence on all occasions that once at a
gladiatorial show he declared that he would give it,
‘not after his own inclination but those of the spectators;
and what is more he kept his word’.(RBK 1, C5, p. 96)
This value and belief (that the Roman kings were
generous and admired for indulging his people with such
sensational shows of bloodshed) were instilled into a child
as young as Suetonius.
Prisoners were considered degraded, polluted and
condemnable beings, they had no place in the society.
They were considered below humanity, they had even lower
status than animals. Compassion was shown for the animals
rather than the condemned - Statius, a writer wrote:
‘...people and Senate mourned in sorrow to see thee die...,
beasts so cheaply slain,
the loss of one lion alone drew a tear
from mighty Caesar’s eye’.
(RBK 1, C7. P.98)
However, justice was given. Prisoners were given the
possibility of rebirth, so that the dead can live again
through bravery, the virtue much respected in the Roman
society. Cicero expressed his feelings that the combats
and courage shown were lessons in good Roman virtues:
‘ These gladiators, these rogues, these barbarians,
to what lengths do they carry their strength of mind’.
(RBK1 C8, p.98).The pain inflicted had to be
commensurate with the sufferings the prisoners had
caused. The pain inflicted on the prisoners was meant
to degrade and humiliate him to ensure proper social
order is being restored.
Games were set to sensationalise with the ingredients of:
power, sex, violence, cruelty, madness, depravity in
gaudy, flashy, threatrical showy displays. The
punishments included: throwing prisoners to wild beasts;
gladiatorial battles, women battling with cripples and
dwarves; women copulating with bull, dressing up prisoners
to enact mythological stories of famous scenes of death
and suffering.
Additionally, the sexually attractive and charismatic
gladiators are most Roman women’s secret fantasy.
According to Keith Hopkins, he suggests that there is a close
link in the Roman minds between gladiatorial fighting and sexuality
(RBK 1 C14, p.113). Thomas Wiedemann observed that
these shows:
‘...like strip-tease shows, tended to engage the
emotions of the on-lookers to an extent that made them
temporarily incapable of rational thoughts'(RBK 1, C11, p.102).
‘ What was it, asked Tertullian, which transformed men who
were timid and peaceable enough in private and made them
shout gleefully for the merciless destruction
of their fellow men?’( Keith Hopkins, RBK 1 C 14, p. 114)
Seneca, a philosopher highlighted the impact of the harmful
effects of these displays of extreme cruelty on the
audience, damaging their soul and spirituality. Being in
a crowd, he claimed bound to influence us with some vices:
‘Indeed there is nothing so damaging to good character as
to take a seat at a show, for then faults sneak up on us
easily through our enjoyment. Do you think I mean that I
go home more greedy, more ambitious, more self-indulgent?
Yes- and more cruel and inhuman
because I have been among humans’.
( RBK 1, C9, p.99)
St. Augustine, another philosopher wrote of how he was at
first most reluctant to attend these cruel displays but
after witnessing the show for the first time he started to
have an extraordinary craving: seething with the lust for
cruelty:
‘ When he saw blood, it was as though he had drunk
a deep draught of savage passion. Instead of turning away,
he fixed his eyes upon the scene and drank in all its frenzy,
unaware of what he was doing’.
(RBK1, C10, p.100)
Pearson wrote ‘This was a vulgar age’ ( RBK1 C12). We might
expressed qualms of the experiences and attitudes of the
Romans- of their sense of justice and democracy however
we need to assess them through Roman’s ancient values that
were build on the idea of public punishment- to assure the
certainty of the punishment and a sense of social order
which leads to such sensational displays of cruelty though
clever manipulation of the emperor and the seduction of
crowd’s psychology.
(927 words)
Bibliography:
Block 2- The Colosseum
Resource Book 1 ( RBK1)
Monday, January 18, 2010
Philosophy- what do you mean by 'wrong'?
essay by cheryl yow
Humanity 1: Philosophy
Question:
Read the following dialogue and then answer the questions.
1.Diana: Suppose you work in a library, checking people’s
books as they leave, and a friend asks you to let him
smuggle out a hard-to-find reference book that he
wants to own. Would you do it?
2.Rita: I don’t think I would, although I would also be
reluctant to refuse help to a friend. But what he
proposes is wrong.
3.Diana: What do you mean by ‘wrong’, and what makes it true?
4.Rita: Something is wrong when it is against the rules
related to it. Letting myfriend smuggle out a reference book
is wrong because it is against the library rules.
5. Catherine: I don’t agree with your definition of ‘wrong’.
To say it’s wrong is not just to say it is against
the rules. There can be bad rules, which prohibit
what isn’t wrong- like law against criticizing the
government. A rule can also be wrong because it
requires something that is wrong –like the law that
requires racial segregation in hotels and restaurants.
Thus the ideas of right and wrong are different
from the ideas of what is and is not against the rules.
Otherwise they couldn’t be used in the evaluation of
rules as well as of actions.
6.Diana: Then what exactly constitutes what we call ‘wrong?’
Where does the desire not to do it come from?
What is its motive? What is the reason behind it?
7. Rita: I think it is the feeling of discomfort associated
with the action. To let my friend steal a book, I will
feel uncomfortable; in some way I won’t want to
do it. It may be because it is unfair to other users
of the library. It also means betraying my employer
who is paying me precisely to keep
this sort of thing from happening.
8. Catherine: That means the thought that something is
wrong depends on its impact not just on the
person who does it but also on other people.
They would not like it, and they’d object if
they found out. But the thought that something
is wrong is supposed to give a reason not to do
it. If the reason is that it affects other people,
we often come across people who do not care
so much about others. Thus, for people who
simply do not care about other people,
something which is generally
thought to be wrong if they can get away with it.
9. Diana: I think this might be going a bit too far.
Suppose your argument were true and the things
usually thought to be wrong, like stealing and so
on, are not wrong if the person doing them does
not care about people getting affected by the action.
Then it is not wrong to, say, kill innocent people,
set fire to your neighbour’s house or rape
7-8 year-old children, as long as the person doing
it does not care about others.
This is not acceptable.
Question 1:
Fill in the missing premise and conclusion
in Rita’s argument in 4.
Answers:
Rita’s missing premise and conclusion:
Premise i: An action is wrong when it is against the rules
related to it.
Premise ii: Letting a friend smuggle out a hard-to-find
reference book is against the library rules.
Conclusion: Therefore, letting a friend smuggle out a
hard-to-find reference book is wrong.
Form of argument: This is a valid and deductive argument.
Question 2. Name the form of argument Diana uses in 9
What is the purpose of that argument?
Answers:
Diana’s argument goes like this:
Implicit assumption: Killing innocent people is wrong
(things usually thought to be wrong)
Premise i: if the person doing an action does not care
about people getting affected by his/her action,
then it is not wrong.
Premise ii: So if he/she kill innocent people and he/she
does not care about people affected by his/her action,
then it is not wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, killing innocent people is not wrong.
The form of argument Diana uses in 9 is reduction ad absurdum
(literally a reduction to absurdity). The purpose is to show a contradiction so
that she is able to conclude that the argument
is wrong and is an invalid argument. Taking the argument to
its extremes reveal its innate absurdity hence its weakness.
Question 3:
What do you mean by the word ‘wrong’
and on what basis do you determine
that an action is wrong?
We grow up as children with our parents telling
us ‘Don’t do that, that is wrong’. What do we mean
by wrong? Right or wrong stems from the culture of
good or bad. Our ideas of right or wrong therefore are
closely associated with what is good or what is bad.
We accept that something is wrong when it is bad in
the sense that our actions will affect our environment
negatively.
Our society strives on rules to function effectively as
a harmonious entity. Humans have long built a culture around
rules. We are brought up by rules telling us what is right to
do or wrong to do. So most people think that wrong means
going against related rules. We have taken for granted that
rules are always right and not meant to be broken. However,
some rules may be bad rules – like a law that requires racial
segregation in hotels and restaurants. So we are left with
what exactly is ‘wrong’?
The word ‘wrong’ means an action that has a negative impact.
However, there are some actions that may have some negative
impact but it is done so to produce a greater positive value.
In this case, the action is not wrong. Even if there is a
positive value in the action but if the negative impact
outweighs the positive value then it is a wrong action.
If you kill someone, you are causing great harm to that
person and his/her family and I do not see any positive
value out of that. That is wrong. If you cut down trees to
make furniture, creating a positive value that is not wrong.
However if you cut down too many trees and cause disorder in
the environment, that is wrong if the negative impact is
greater than the positive value it generates. Killing an
animal for food, is that a wrong action? It depends on what
are the positive values or negative impact created by that
action. That would be an entirely different argument. For
now we are just concerned with what determined a wrong
action.
Therefore, an action is wrong if it causes harm,
disorder or has a negative impact on people,
animals and our environment without creating
any positive value or which the negative impact
of the action is greater than the positive value
created.
Humanity 1: Philosophy
Question:
Read the following dialogue and then answer the questions.
1.Diana: Suppose you work in a library, checking people’s
books as they leave, and a friend asks you to let him
smuggle out a hard-to-find reference book that he
wants to own. Would you do it?
2.Rita: I don’t think I would, although I would also be
reluctant to refuse help to a friend. But what he
proposes is wrong.
3.Diana: What do you mean by ‘wrong’, and what makes it true?
4.Rita: Something is wrong when it is against the rules
related to it. Letting myfriend smuggle out a reference book
is wrong because it is against the library rules.
5. Catherine: I don’t agree with your definition of ‘wrong’.
To say it’s wrong is not just to say it is against
the rules. There can be bad rules, which prohibit
what isn’t wrong- like law against criticizing the
government. A rule can also be wrong because it
requires something that is wrong –like the law that
requires racial segregation in hotels and restaurants.
Thus the ideas of right and wrong are different
from the ideas of what is and is not against the rules.
Otherwise they couldn’t be used in the evaluation of
rules as well as of actions.
6.Diana: Then what exactly constitutes what we call ‘wrong?’
Where does the desire not to do it come from?
What is its motive? What is the reason behind it?
7. Rita: I think it is the feeling of discomfort associated
with the action. To let my friend steal a book, I will
feel uncomfortable; in some way I won’t want to
do it. It may be because it is unfair to other users
of the library. It also means betraying my employer
who is paying me precisely to keep
this sort of thing from happening.
8. Catherine: That means the thought that something is
wrong depends on its impact not just on the
person who does it but also on other people.
They would not like it, and they’d object if
they found out. But the thought that something
is wrong is supposed to give a reason not to do
it. If the reason is that it affects other people,
we often come across people who do not care
so much about others. Thus, for people who
simply do not care about other people,
something which is generally
thought to be wrong if they can get away with it.
9. Diana: I think this might be going a bit too far.
Suppose your argument were true and the things
usually thought to be wrong, like stealing and so
on, are not wrong if the person doing them does
not care about people getting affected by the action.
Then it is not wrong to, say, kill innocent people,
set fire to your neighbour’s house or rape
7-8 year-old children, as long as the person doing
it does not care about others.
This is not acceptable.
Question 1:
Fill in the missing premise and conclusion
in Rita’s argument in 4.
Answers:
Rita’s missing premise and conclusion:
Premise i: An action is wrong when it is against the rules
related to it.
Premise ii: Letting a friend smuggle out a hard-to-find
reference book is against the library rules.
Conclusion: Therefore, letting a friend smuggle out a
hard-to-find reference book is wrong.
Form of argument: This is a valid and deductive argument.
Question 2. Name the form of argument Diana uses in 9
What is the purpose of that argument?
Answers:
Diana’s argument goes like this:
Implicit assumption: Killing innocent people is wrong
(things usually thought to be wrong)
Premise i: if the person doing an action does not care
about people getting affected by his/her action,
then it is not wrong.
Premise ii: So if he/she kill innocent people and he/she
does not care about people affected by his/her action,
then it is not wrong.
Conclusion: Therefore, killing innocent people is not wrong.
The form of argument Diana uses in 9 is reduction ad absurdum
(literally a reduction to absurdity). The purpose is to show a contradiction so
that she is able to conclude that the argument
is wrong and is an invalid argument. Taking the argument to
its extremes reveal its innate absurdity hence its weakness.
Question 3:
What do you mean by the word ‘wrong’
and on what basis do you determine
that an action is wrong?
We grow up as children with our parents telling
us ‘Don’t do that, that is wrong’. What do we mean
by wrong? Right or wrong stems from the culture of
good or bad. Our ideas of right or wrong therefore are
closely associated with what is good or what is bad.
We accept that something is wrong when it is bad in
the sense that our actions will affect our environment
negatively.
Our society strives on rules to function effectively as
a harmonious entity. Humans have long built a culture around
rules. We are brought up by rules telling us what is right to
do or wrong to do. So most people think that wrong means
going against related rules. We have taken for granted that
rules are always right and not meant to be broken. However,
some rules may be bad rules – like a law that requires racial
segregation in hotels and restaurants. So we are left with
what exactly is ‘wrong’?
The word ‘wrong’ means an action that has a negative impact.
However, there are some actions that may have some negative
impact but it is done so to produce a greater positive value.
In this case, the action is not wrong. Even if there is a
positive value in the action but if the negative impact
outweighs the positive value then it is a wrong action.
If you kill someone, you are causing great harm to that
person and his/her family and I do not see any positive
value out of that. That is wrong. If you cut down trees to
make furniture, creating a positive value that is not wrong.
However if you cut down too many trees and cause disorder in
the environment, that is wrong if the negative impact is
greater than the positive value it generates. Killing an
animal for food, is that a wrong action? It depends on what
are the positive values or negative impact created by that
action. That would be an entirely different argument. For
now we are just concerned with what determined a wrong
action.
Therefore, an action is wrong if it causes harm,
disorder or has a negative impact on people,
animals and our environment without creating
any positive value or which the negative impact
of the action is greater than the positive value
created.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
