Evil, like good, is often measured in relation to how it impacts us personally and physically. Judging evil solely by its consequence is inappropriate and very much invalid. Evilness is strictly subjective, which means the extent to which something is considered “evil” really depends on the individual; and that person’s moral values, religion, etc. Evil is basically the opposite of good and most people are aware what the nature of “good” is all about.
Evil can take a variety of different shapes and forms; evil can be an emotional thing, or it can be a physical thing. An evil person is not an ignorant person but is somebody who is knowledgeable and who knows exactly what he/she is doing. Hitler for example would be considered an evil individual because he knew exactly what he was trying to accomplish in Germany, Hitler had every intent to manipulate the Germans to be his “people”, and he had every intent to exterminate all the Jewish people in Germany. In psychological terms, evil is an aberration of the ego. An evil ego has a strong desire to dominate other egos which is exactly what Hitler did. An evil person knows that terror is the most effective way to dominate people because terror induces a great amount of fear, and people who are induced with fear cannot take effective action to defend them. It is basically like putting an innocent baby in a dark room and turning of the lights, the baby would be terrified for his/her life.
Basically, evil people are the smartest people and are fully aware of their actions. Somebody who takes joy in watching people suffer, reeking havoc on innocent people, and just causing a million and one problems would be considered evil. Aristotle, a philosopher said that we humans have free will, and our actions are either voluntary or involuntary. This basically means if our actions are voluntary then we know exactly what we are doing, and this is what “evil” people do. A person who’s actions are involuntary don’t know the consequences of their actions and not because they choose not to inform themselves but because they really do not know. Somebody who is mentally disabled, who decides to kill somebody probably wouldn’t know right from wrong, thus making this person not “evil.”
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
What is the nature of good?
Many people probably have their own definition on the nature of good; but most people would most likely agree that the nature of good is acting selflessly and not doing good just to receive something in return. Also not just doing “good” because you think it’s your duty or because you have to, but because you want to out of your own free will.
The nature of good is not doing good just to receive something in return because that is just being greedy and selfish which is pretty much the nature of evil in most cases. For example if you see an add in the newspaper that some big time billionaires dog has been missing for weeks, you don’t just go spending 5 days straight to locate this dog just to return it to ask the billionaire what reward you would be getting. The odds are you usually just get thanks and that owner will be greatly appreciated and that should be a good enough reward. Another example is not just doing the right thing because you feel you have to or else you will get in trouble, you should want to do the right thing because it is ethical, justified and fair, and it should make you feel good inside. People that put others before they even in the most serious of situations would be considered “good” Those are the best people in the world; the people that put others before themselves always, no matter what. For example if you had to make a decision in an airplane where there was one parachute and there are two people left in the plane. A good person would offer it to the other person over themselves. That may be a little extreme, but that would define a “good” person.
Overall the nature of good is solely subjective, and people have different opinions on what they believe is the nature of good. For example one may say that as long as “good” is done even if one doesn’t have pure intentions behind their actions then that person is still considered “good.” On the other hand another person may say that if their intentions aren’t pure then no matter how much good they do even if they find the cure for cancer that person’s nature is still “evil.”
The nature of good is not doing good just to receive something in return because that is just being greedy and selfish which is pretty much the nature of evil in most cases. For example if you see an add in the newspaper that some big time billionaires dog has been missing for weeks, you don’t just go spending 5 days straight to locate this dog just to return it to ask the billionaire what reward you would be getting. The odds are you usually just get thanks and that owner will be greatly appreciated and that should be a good enough reward. Another example is not just doing the right thing because you feel you have to or else you will get in trouble, you should want to do the right thing because it is ethical, justified and fair, and it should make you feel good inside. People that put others before they even in the most serious of situations would be considered “good” Those are the best people in the world; the people that put others before themselves always, no matter what. For example if you had to make a decision in an airplane where there was one parachute and there are two people left in the plane. A good person would offer it to the other person over themselves. That may be a little extreme, but that would define a “good” person.
Overall the nature of good is solely subjective, and people have different opinions on what they believe is the nature of good. For example one may say that as long as “good” is done even if one doesn’t have pure intentions behind their actions then that person is still considered “good.” On the other hand another person may say that if their intentions aren’t pure then no matter how much good they do even if they find the cure for cancer that person’s nature is still “evil.”
Is it subjective or a universal truth about what constitutes “good” and “evil”?
The issue on “good” and “evil can in fact be both a subjective and a universal truth, but is usually seen as a subjective thought. These days evil and good can take so many different forms, and how we see evil and good these days depend on a number of different positive and negative factors. For example somebody can see computers as evil becasue of what it's doing to our youth, and another person can see computers as a good thing becasue of all the positive things it has done for youths.
The only universal “good” and “evil” that one can really think of that includes all religions, people, etc is a Heaven and Hell. No matter how you look at it everybody in this world see Hell as an evil place and Heaven as a good place. You would never see somebody talking about Hell being some mystical, magical, magnificent place filled with flowers, fairies and angels. People usually talk about Hell as a dark red and disgusting place filled with fire and excruciating temperatures where only evil people go to be punished for their evil “sins”. Whereas Heaven is seen as a place of prosperity, a big blue sky, angels flying everywhere, basically a place where all “good” people go. It is not even a universal truth to say that “God” is necessarily a good being. Some people see good as evil, because “god” is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good, but if he was all this stuff then why would there be so much “evil” in the world, and why hasn’t this “god” character done anything to stop all this evil in the world especially considering Earth was his creation. On the other hand most people see God as good and their soul savior.
A more practical example of why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example when it comes to Teenaged Pregnancy and the issue on abortion. Some people see abortion as evil because you’re basically ending a poor innocent baby’s life. Humans don’t have the right to decide whether somebody should live or die that should be left to some higher being such as “God”. Some people say the universe will unfold as it should in time; so if the baby needs to die it will die some time in the near future. On the other hand some people see abortion as a good thing, because if the teenager doesn’t live in a stable environment or family then why bring a new life into such an environment? Another example to why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example this is an obvious one; here in Canada smoking weed is illegal and is 100% a bad thing or an “Evil” thing to do, but in Amsterdam for example it is perfectly legal and isn’t bad to do at all.
Although there are a few discrepancies and exceptions to whether or not “good” and “evil” is universal or subjective for the most part “good” and “evil” is seen as subjective and depending on the person, environment, religion what is “good” and what is “Evil” can change.
The only universal “good” and “evil” that one can really think of that includes all religions, people, etc is a Heaven and Hell. No matter how you look at it everybody in this world see Hell as an evil place and Heaven as a good place. You would never see somebody talking about Hell being some mystical, magical, magnificent place filled with flowers, fairies and angels. People usually talk about Hell as a dark red and disgusting place filled with fire and excruciating temperatures where only evil people go to be punished for their evil “sins”. Whereas Heaven is seen as a place of prosperity, a big blue sky, angels flying everywhere, basically a place where all “good” people go. It is not even a universal truth to say that “God” is necessarily a good being. Some people see good as evil, because “god” is supposed to be all knowing, all powerful, and all good, but if he was all this stuff then why would there be so much “evil” in the world, and why hasn’t this “god” character done anything to stop all this evil in the world especially considering Earth was his creation. On the other hand most people see God as good and their soul savior.
A more practical example of why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example when it comes to Teenaged Pregnancy and the issue on abortion. Some people see abortion as evil because you’re basically ending a poor innocent baby’s life. Humans don’t have the right to decide whether somebody should live or die that should be left to some higher being such as “God”. Some people say the universe will unfold as it should in time; so if the baby needs to die it will die some time in the near future. On the other hand some people see abortion as a good thing, because if the teenager doesn’t live in a stable environment or family then why bring a new life into such an environment? Another example to why “good” and “evil” is subjective is because for example this is an obvious one; here in Canada smoking weed is illegal and is 100% a bad thing or an “Evil” thing to do, but in Amsterdam for example it is perfectly legal and isn’t bad to do at all.
Although there are a few discrepancies and exceptions to whether or not “good” and “evil” is universal or subjective for the most part “good” and “evil” is seen as subjective and depending on the person, environment, religion what is “good” and what is “Evil” can change.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Adolescents and the Media – Informal tone & structure
I found that this “piece” of writing I am not even sure what to call it was definitely a lot different than the other 3 essays and editorials. It was definitely informal tone and had informal structure. It’s not enough to say this was bad it was just “different”. I must say that it was nice how the author had the sub headings, at least if the author wasn’t clear on the point he was trying to make in his/her paragraphs the subheadings would at least some what clarify things. This also made this piece of writing very organized and was fun to read, because with the subheadings you knew what you were about to read. For example the author had a main heading called “What we know” and then subheadings such as media violence, teen suicide, sec, drugs obesity and eating disorders and learning problems.
As far as content goes, the content was pretty good, not only did the author talk about how the media affected children and teenagers with violence, but the author talked about how it affected them negatively with drugs, sex, alcohol, school, etc. I found that was very good because it does have a somewhat bad effect on them. I also found it good how the author had an effective introduction to state what he was talking about and then had to major headings called what we know, and then the 6 or so subheadings and the “we don’t know” subheading.
It is clear that this piece of writing has no formality once so ever in tone and structure therefore talking about it would just be stating the clear obvious. I do agree on what the author says on how young children are watching way too much television, and on top of that the majority of children and teenagers have their own televisions in their room. This means they can watch what ever program they want without being hassled by their parents. I find young children are very curious so if they find something on television that they know they shouldn’t be watching they seem to just watch it anyways, even if they say it’s just for a second, which second will turn in to one hour. And pretty soon they’ll be watching this inappropriate program on a regular basis. I myself had a television in my room when I was small, so I am speaking from experience here.
As far as content goes, the content was pretty good, not only did the author talk about how the media affected children and teenagers with violence, but the author talked about how it affected them negatively with drugs, sex, alcohol, school, etc. I found that was very good because it does have a somewhat bad effect on them. I also found it good how the author had an effective introduction to state what he was talking about and then had to major headings called what we know, and then the 6 or so subheadings and the “we don’t know” subheading.
It is clear that this piece of writing has no formality once so ever in tone and structure therefore talking about it would just be stating the clear obvious. I do agree on what the author says on how young children are watching way too much television, and on top of that the majority of children and teenagers have their own televisions in their room. This means they can watch what ever program they want without being hassled by their parents. I find young children are very curious so if they find something on television that they know they shouldn’t be watching they seem to just watch it anyways, even if they say it’s just for a second, which second will turn in to one hour. And pretty soon they’ll be watching this inappropriate program on a regular basis. I myself had a television in my room when I was small, so I am speaking from experience here.
Debunking Media Violence - Formal
I found that this editorial was a bit shorter than the first essay but was longer than the second. I also found this editorial to be a lot more interesting than the other two essays. When I was reading the other two I was always wondering how much more I had to read, how much longer I had to read, etc. Another words I wanted the essays to be over as soon as possible, but wit this editorial I wasn’t too worried about the length or how long it would take me to finish reading it. This article was very interesting.
I also liked how the author of this article was very organized and new exactly what he or she was talking about. For the first half of the editorial the author talked about how some experts and researches said that the violence in young children was directly related to the violence that they see in the media. Even though I don’t agree with this the author had some good points and some good points, to back up this opinion, and was very persuasive. For example he/she says “Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence.” The author also has a lot of hard evidence and facts from big time people and organizations which is really good. The author also has a lot of comparisons between around 20-30 years ago to now, and how everything has changed. In the second part of this essay he talks about how the media has no affect on the violence from children or teens. He/she transitions between the two arguments very well, and makes it very clear he/she is switching from one argument to another. I think that was very effective, and pulling off a good transition can sometimes be very difficult. The majority of this editorial had to do with how violence in the media has a very trivial effect on the violence of teens. So I believe this is the side that the author supported. I thought it was effective how the author started out some of his paragraphs with rhetorical questions because it really gets the reader thinking.
This editorial I found was a lot more formal than the Media Violence Formal Essay, simply because it just seemed a lot more serious and well constructed than the other one. The author wrote in third person throughout the entire essay and really stated his points strongly with strong facts and statistics. I noticed that the author used passive voice throughout this editorial. The author surprisingly avoided using colloquial words and expressions like (kids, guy, awesome, a lot, etc.). For example instead of using kids he used children, and instead of using the word “awesome” like an informal editorial would he used wonderful which sounds a lot more sophisticated. And like all formal editorials/essays the author avoided contractions.
I also liked how the author of this article was very organized and new exactly what he or she was talking about. For the first half of the editorial the author talked about how some experts and researches said that the violence in young children was directly related to the violence that they see in the media. Even though I don’t agree with this the author had some good points and some good points, to back up this opinion, and was very persuasive. For example he/she says “Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence.” The author also has a lot of hard evidence and facts from big time people and organizations which is really good. The author also has a lot of comparisons between around 20-30 years ago to now, and how everything has changed. In the second part of this essay he talks about how the media has no affect on the violence from children or teens. He/she transitions between the two arguments very well, and makes it very clear he/she is switching from one argument to another. I think that was very effective, and pulling off a good transition can sometimes be very difficult. The majority of this editorial had to do with how violence in the media has a very trivial effect on the violence of teens. So I believe this is the side that the author supported. I thought it was effective how the author started out some of his paragraphs with rhetorical questions because it really gets the reader thinking.
This editorial I found was a lot more formal than the Media Violence Formal Essay, simply because it just seemed a lot more serious and well constructed than the other one. The author wrote in third person throughout the entire essay and really stated his points strongly with strong facts and statistics. I noticed that the author used passive voice throughout this editorial. The author surprisingly avoided using colloquial words and expressions like (kids, guy, awesome, a lot, etc.). For example instead of using kids he used children, and instead of using the word “awesome” like an informal editorial would he used wonderful which sounds a lot more sophisticated. And like all formal editorials/essays the author avoided contractions.
Media Violence - Formal Tone
Unlike the other essay on media violence this article was very short, and just because an essay is short doesn’t mean I am going to think it is better than a 20 page essay, because this essay could have had no content and could have been absolute garbage, but in this case the essay was short and straight to the point. Right away I knew exactly what the author was trying to say and there were no discrepancies.
The article talked about how long ago violence was from the newspapers, and from then on it has gone from being in the newspapers to being on television. The author had a lot of facts and statistics that made his argument a lot more persuasive and believable. For example he talks about how researchers have found that most of the television content was extremely violent. In almost half of the television hours monitored, the main focus on most of them was violence. Another very persuasive fact that the author uses is, “Robert Liebert and Robert baron concluded, in a laboratory situation, that watching a violent program or scene made children more willing to be aggressors.” Therefore overall from all this authors’ stats and facts his content is very well organized, thought out and believable.
The tone of the essay was definitely a formal tone especially after comparing it to the other informal tone argument. This essay definitely seemed a lot more organized and serious than the other informal essay. Some of the reasons why the tone of this essay was formal was because first of all I didn’t notice any contractions, and the author avoided addressing the audience using second person pronouns such as (you, your, etc). The author also avoided using imperative voice which is key in an informal tone but not in this case where the essay is formal. One of the bad things is that formal tone essays usually have longer and more complex sentences, whereas this essay didn’t seem to have well constructed sentences. Overall the author stated his/her points confidently and his opinion was well supported.
The author of the article in the end talks about how even though television violence may contribute to violence, television programs are not to blame completely. There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people; such as their knowledge, interests, positive attitudes, and allowing them to distinguish between right and wrong through actually watching violence. Therefore television is not to blame and we have a responsibility to watch out for our children. The author does make a very good point. Television will always be around, and will definitely not be changing anytime soon so we just need to deal with it.
The article talked about how long ago violence was from the newspapers, and from then on it has gone from being in the newspapers to being on television. The author had a lot of facts and statistics that made his argument a lot more persuasive and believable. For example he talks about how researchers have found that most of the television content was extremely violent. In almost half of the television hours monitored, the main focus on most of them was violence. Another very persuasive fact that the author uses is, “Robert Liebert and Robert baron concluded, in a laboratory situation, that watching a violent program or scene made children more willing to be aggressors.” Therefore overall from all this authors’ stats and facts his content is very well organized, thought out and believable.
The tone of the essay was definitely a formal tone especially after comparing it to the other informal tone argument. This essay definitely seemed a lot more organized and serious than the other informal essay. Some of the reasons why the tone of this essay was formal was because first of all I didn’t notice any contractions, and the author avoided addressing the audience using second person pronouns such as (you, your, etc). The author also avoided using imperative voice which is key in an informal tone but not in this case where the essay is formal. One of the bad things is that formal tone essays usually have longer and more complex sentences, whereas this essay didn’t seem to have well constructed sentences. Overall the author stated his/her points confidently and his opinion was well supported.
The author of the article in the end talks about how even though television violence may contribute to violence, television programs are not to blame completely. There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people; such as their knowledge, interests, positive attitudes, and allowing them to distinguish between right and wrong through actually watching violence. Therefore television is not to blame and we have a responsibility to watch out for our children. The author does make a very good point. Television will always be around, and will definitely not be changing anytime soon so we just need to deal with it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Media Violence - Informal Tone
This editorial was incredibly long, thus making it really hard to be persuaded. I felt around half way through I finally understood what the author was trying to say and then in the next two or three paragraphs he/she had just completely lost me. Although towards the end of the editorial the author really seemed to get his point across, I fully understood what he was trying to say. This editorial was boring and didn’t keep me interested. Overall In the end though the author saved himself and thankfully got his/her point across to me, and somewhat persuaded me. The author did though have a few rhetorical questions, and did engage the reader a couple times because he/she used words like “we, us, etc)
At first the author talked about Media Violence was a cause of all the violence in this world and he used the example of the Virginia Tech Killer. He said how he probably got most of his sick plans and ideas from some Korean or Asian films. His point was most people get their bad ideas from Media Violence. After that he started talking about how media violence is not the soul cause of violence in society. The author says how media violence only amplifies the violent thoughts already in peoples head. In other words you don’t wake up one day and watch somebody get shot on television then decide to go on a crazy massacre. For example the Virginia tech Killer already had a sick mind and had a whole lot of problems, so he probably all ready had all these thoughts in his mind.
I would say that this is definitely an informal tone editorial because throughout the editorial, the author uses an active voice a couple times, for example he says “If we take most of the exciting research…” The author uses a passive voice, and also the authors point were not shown clearly where in a formal tone the points would have to be clear and stated confidently. The author also refers to the reader in second person pronouns (you, your, etc). The author talks in second person a couple times which makes it pretty informal. Using a lot of contractions would make an editorial informal and that is exactly what the author of this editorial has done. Therefore overall this editorial is completely informal.
At first the author talked about Media Violence was a cause of all the violence in this world and he used the example of the Virginia Tech Killer. He said how he probably got most of his sick plans and ideas from some Korean or Asian films. His point was most people get their bad ideas from Media Violence. After that he started talking about how media violence is not the soul cause of violence in society. The author says how media violence only amplifies the violent thoughts already in peoples head. In other words you don’t wake up one day and watch somebody get shot on television then decide to go on a crazy massacre. For example the Virginia tech Killer already had a sick mind and had a whole lot of problems, so he probably all ready had all these thoughts in his mind.
I would say that this is definitely an informal tone editorial because throughout the editorial, the author uses an active voice a couple times, for example he says “If we take most of the exciting research…” The author uses a passive voice, and also the authors point were not shown clearly where in a formal tone the points would have to be clear and stated confidently. The author also refers to the reader in second person pronouns (you, your, etc). The author talks in second person a couple times which makes it pretty informal. Using a lot of contractions would make an editorial informal and that is exactly what the author of this editorial has done. Therefore overall this editorial is completely informal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
