mid April. I have been busy with school and am now
of school. I have been brainstorming a possible future blog entry based on a selection from the bible that I have been
over since my last entry was published—a long time! It is the selection of Matthew 7:13.
{7:3} Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye? {7:4} Or how will you tell your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye;’ and behold, the beam is in your own eye? {7:5} You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye (WEB).
I need to realize that I am a sinner, and that I continue to sin in different ways, in forwarding half-truths, or full-truths that do not completely honor or glorify God. Able to acknowledge the fact that I am imperfect, I am able to look at others who may have experienced similar dilemmas as I have, and that helps me be more sympathetic, which I speculate (with fallen wisdom) that judging others is made less severe. The way I look at it, again (with the twist of fallen wisdom) is that no amount of rationalization can take the place of earnest repentance. Before I share an academic paper (which is fallen) with you I must confess that it does not consult the bible, so it should not be regarded with such importance. Further, I am aware, and you should be too, that this blog and every entry that has been written and continues to be written within it is fallen. While this may lead you to ask why I would bother writing, or continue to write, I offer an explanation: if this blog encourages you to follow the Lord, or helps enrich your understanding of the bible, and that leads you to live a life that honors the Lord, then if that is what the Lord desires of me, then this blog has its right place, despite the sinful behavior or sinful actions that the entries either purposely or inadvertently prescribe or communicate. I am now going to share this paper which I wrote in my psychology course at Johnny Doe that seems to make some comments on the subject of judgment:
Moral Ambiguity
In the article “Bad Apples or Bad Barrels?” by Eric Wargo, on page 161 of the textbook Annual Editions: Psychology, the main point the author makes is how psychologists rarely look at psychological cases from the judgment classification of ‘good,’ or ‘evil’ (161). Wargo talks about a lecture that was delivered by Philip Zimbardo. Wargo’s article can be seen as objective, as readers can see he stays away from using his own opinion, frequently citing Zimbardo’s lecture. Wargo gives some background information in certain parts of the article, but manages to write a scientific article nonetheless, because all the events he explains, can be traced back to recorded history. For example, Wargo points out the historical significance of Abu Graib, which is non-fiction. (162).
The strong features of Wargo’s argument are seen in a paragraph where he writes as a conduit for Zimbardo’s argument, saying, “according to Zimbardo, the inhuman conditions at the prison—which had been Saddam Hussein’s torture chamber before the war—created the situation necessary to effect a Jekyll/Hyde transformation in Frederick’s (and his fellow guards’) character” (162). Wargo is able to successfully process Zimbardo’s argument, and for those not fortunate enough to have been able to attend Zimbardo’s lecture, Wargo presents the next best thing as this journal argument which promotes understanding to this complex topic.
The weak features of Wargo’s argument are seen in his subjective clause when he writes “most [social scientists] prefer to speak in more muted terms of violence and aggression, or use sanitized, judgment-free language of psychopathology—the language of disorders” (101). Wargo may not have intended o insult social scientists in this sentence, but is seems, regardless of his intentions, that he may have. If this is the case, and he did inadvertently insult social scientists, he may need to issue an apology in a subsequent journal authored by himself. Another weakness is uncovered throughout the article, in that Wargo perhaps writes too objectively. While it is important for a writer to minimize bias that inevitably comes with producing an argument, still, bias in small amounts, many agree, contribute positively to the overall message of the paper or article.
I have learned in Chapter three of the third edition of the textbook Invitation to Psychology by Carole Wade and Carol Tavris, that moral reasoning determines what choices an individual makes. In the article, Wargo talks about Abu Graib—the discussion Zimbardo focused on in his lecture. Zimbardo admits that the treatment that the US military gave to the prisoners of war was wrong, when he says, “situations in which people are depersonalized are good breeding grounds for evil” (162). The victims of the torture at Abu Graib are the ones that Zimbardo says were ‘depersonalized.’ In the textbook we learn about how Jean Piaget overestimated the cognitive skills of many adults (84). The upshot of moral reasoning seems to conclude that an individual does not always behave the way another expects him or her to behave. What I learned in chapter three that goes against what the author has stated is, perhaps to some, common sense; that moral reasoning is influenced by education and culture. If this premise holds true, then Wargo, and by extension, Zimbardo, are incorrect, or mistaken. One asks the question, how could an army man or army woman make such skewed moral judgments and be educated? This question is left unanswered in the article, and because it is, it accounts for one thing I have learned in the course that goes against Wargo, the author.
I would apply the news story related to Michael Steele in this article. Michael Steele, recently elected chairman of the republican national committee. Has been reported as praising the republican party, while also berating it. The article by Wargo proves that one should not form hard expectations of someone, and that everyone is subject to change, whether the change is great or small. The article featuring Michael Steele was featured on the front page of the New York Times newspaper March 8th. It is possible that Steele was an agent of evil whenever he verbally ripped at the Republican Party. Wargo quotes Zimbardo when he says, “sometimes, just like human cells, material flows in and out. And if it does, then it could allow some ordinary people like you to become perpetrators of evil” (161).
I can see a lot of what was said in Wargo’s article apply to my life. For example, I had a friend in high school, and when I attended high school, I talked to him, with some regularity. A few months ago, however, I wrote on his Facebook wall, and to this day, I have not heard back from him. Whether he did not wish to talk to me, or whether he simply did not read my message, I do not know whether I will ever know the truth, but regardless, I expected he would return my message, but he never did. Learning how to adjust my expectations correctly is a task that I have struggled with in the past, and a task that I continue to struggle with. It is important to keep in mind that everyone is not only good or only evil (161).
Works Cited
Duffy, Karen. Annual Editions: Psychology. 38th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
Wade, Carole, and Carol Tavris. Invitation to Psychology. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Kantor, Jodi. New Chairman Boos G.O.P. When He’s Not Cheerleading.”
New York Times 08 March 2009, natl. ed: A1.
Moral Ambiguity
In the article “Bad Apples or Bad Barrels?” by Eric Wargo, on page 161 of the textbook Annual Editions: Psychology, the main point the author makes is how psychologists rarely look at psychological cases from the judgment classification of ‘good,’ or ‘evil’ (161). Wargo talks about a lecture that was delivered by Philip Zimbardo. Wargo’s article can be seen as objective, as readers can see he stays away from using his own opinion, frequently citing Zimbardo’s lecture. Wargo gives some background information in certain parts of the article, but manages to write a scientific article nonetheless, because all the events he explains, can be traced back to recorded history. For example, Wargo points out the historical significance of Abu Graib, which is non-fiction. (162).
The strong features of Wargo’s argument are seen in a paragraph where he writes as a conduit for Zimbardo’s argument, saying, “according to Zimbardo, the inhuman conditions at the prison—which had been Saddam Hussein’s torture chamber before the war—created the situation necessary to effect a Jekyll/Hyde transformation in Frederick’s (and his fellow guards’) character” (162). Wargo is able to successfully process Zimbardo’s argument, and for those not fortunate enough to have been able to attend Zimbardo’s lecture, Wargo presents the next best thing as this journal argument which promotes understanding to this complex topic.
The weak features of Wargo’s argument are seen in his subjective clause when he writes “most [social scientists] prefer to speak in more muted terms of violence and aggression, or use sanitized, judgment-free language of psychopathology—the language of disorders” (101). Wargo may not have intended to insult social scientists in this sentence, but it seems, regardless of his intentions, that he may have. If this is the case, and he did inadvertently insult social scientists, he may need to issue an apology in a subsequent journal authored by himself. Another weakness is uncovered throughout the article, in that Wargo perhaps writes too objectively. While it is important for a writer to minimize bias that inevitably comes with producing an argument, still, bias in small amounts, many agree, contribute positively to the overall message of the paper or article.
I have learned in Chapter three of the third edition of the textbook Invitation to Psychology by Carole Wade and Carol Tavris, that moral reasoning determines what choices an individual makes. In the article, Wargo talks about Abu Graib—the discussion Zimbardo focused on in his lecture. Zimbardo admits that the treatment that the US military gave to the prisoners of war was wrong, when he says, “situations in which people are depersonalized are good breeding grounds for evil” (162). The victims of the torture at Abu Graib are the ones that Zimbardo says were ‘depersonalized.’ In the textbook we learn about how Jean Piaget overestimated the cognitive skills of many adults (84). The upshot of moral reasoning seems to conclude that an individual does not always behave the way another expects him or her to behave. What I learned in chapter three that goes against what the author has stated is, perhaps to some, common sense; that moral reasoning is influenced by education and culture. If this premise holds true, then Wargo, and by extension, Zimbardo, are incorrect, or mistaken. One asks the question, how could an army man or army woman make such skewed moral judgments and be educated? This question is left unanswered in the article, and because it is, it accounts for one thing I have learned in the course that goes against Wargo, the author.
I would apply the news story related to Michael Steele in this article. Michael Steele, recently elected chairman of the republican national committee. Has been reported as praising the republican party, while also berating it. The article by Wargo proves that one should not form hard expectations of someone, and that everyone is subject to change, whether the change is great or small. The article featuring Michael Steele was featured on the front page of the New York Times newspaper March 8th. It is possible that Steele was an agent of evil whenever he verbally ripped at the Republican Party. Wargo quotes Zimbardo when he says, “sometimes, just like human cells, material flows in and out. And if it does, then it could allow some ordinary people like you to become perpetrators of evil” (161).
I can see a lot of what was said in Wargo’s article apply to my life. For example, I had a friend in high school, and when I attended high school, I talked to him, with some regularity. A few months ago, however, I wrote on his Facebook wall, and to this day, I have not heard back from him. Whether he did not wish to talk to me, or whether he simply did not read my message, I do not know whether I will ever know the truth, but regardless, I expected he would return my message, but he never did. Learning how to adjust my expectations correctly is a task that I have struggled with in the past, and a task that I continue to struggle with. It is important to keep in mind that everyone is not only good or only evil (161).
Works Cited
Duffy, Karen. Annual Editions: Psychology. 38th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
Wade, Carole, and Carol Tavris. Invitation to Psychology. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education: Prentice Hall, 2005.
Kantor, Jodi. New Chairman Boos G.O.P. When He’s Not Cheerleading.”
New York Times 08 March 2009, natl. ed: A1.
Let me explain: I was perusing the Royal Carribean website because I am lucky enough to go on the 5-day Majesty of the Seas Cruise and saw the Royal Carribean’s newest ship that boasts the highest passenger capacity in the world for a ship (It’s 6,296 for the record– source: wikipedia)
1st Chronicles 29:11 says, “Thine, O Lord is the greatness, and the power , and the glory and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all” (KJV). The Lord is the best. This is true. The Oasis of the Seas is the best. This is false! The Titanic was said to be an unsinkable ship, and it sank on its maiden voyage. The Oasis of the Seas may be a great ship, but it’s not Noah’s Ark. It does not have the power to create the earth in seven days. The Lord does have the power to create the earth in seven days, and after Genesis the rest is history. Therefore it is the Lord we should worship and not a cruise ship, regardless of how many Jacuzzis and restaurants it has. Maybe that is obvious. I like to think nothing is obvious until it is on record.
The Narrow Gate, Matthew 7:3 states, “enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (NRSV).
