The Morality of Human Beings - Literature review Example

Mrzouq AlQahtani Academic writing 07 10 “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram and “The Moral Instinct” by Steven Pinker are different writings which all have a specific point to make. These readings all have a different impact. “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell is a story that focuses upon the experiences of a British sub divisional officer in Burma and an event where he is pushed into shooting an elephant. “Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram is about human beings and how an individual can be obedient which surpasses all the limits regarding ethics. “The Moral Instinct” by Steven Pinker works towards a perfect analysis of the morality of human beings. Steven Pinker argues that morality is the individual sense of a human being which is based on five principles which are mentioned in the essay It is this morality which helps an individual to fulfill certain tasks when it comes to the norms of the society. The most effective argument out of all these is made by Stanley Milgram who presents a very clear concept. It explains the fact that human obedience and submission to authority can make them do certain acts which are beyond the moral ethics. His experiment is clearly supported by his research and leaves a strong impact on the reader. [promising thesis] Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment which involved a teacher, a learner and the main experimenter who supervised everything. The teacher was the only actual participant whereas the learner and experimenter were aware of everything. The teacher and learner were both kept in separate rooms and a communication was developed between them. The teacher was to read words to the learner and the learner was supposed to remember those words and repeat them. In case he did not remember the words he was supposed to be administered electrical shocks. 60 percent of the participants ended up giving shocks to the students as high as 450 Volts which proved the fact that a human being can work beyond his will and perform acts that he personally considers wrong when he is actually asked to do something through an authority. Initially the subjects were students of Yale and hence it was argued that these results cannot be implied to everyone. To counter this, experiments were repeated and the subjects were then taken from the ordinary people. The results remained almost the same upholding the previous result. The experiment presented with results about the human aspect of obedience. The experiment showed that obedience to authorities can actually make people perform acts beyond their will, even if it is incorrect. Thus authority can make a person do things that he would never think about doing normally. Humans also possess the nature of trying to satisfy their superiors and this factor can lead them to performing inhuman acts as well. The society has molded human behavior which was very different than what it used to be. The competitions in the society and other changes have greatly altered the roles of people than what they used to be before. On the other hand George Orwell presented the account of an officer who was forced due to his circumstances to work on this post in Burma due to his low education level. This is the story of the period when Burma was a part of the British Empire. The officer was extremely disliked by the people of Burma who used to harass him whenever they got a chance. He was also not very fond of the working of the Empire which followed harsh rules to maintain its integrity and rule Burma. His displeasure can be seen when he says, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.” He then presents an account where he was called by his officer to come and handle a stray elephant. When he reaches there and leaves to search for the elephant in the area, he carries with him a weapon for his defense. But every local believes that he would kill the elephant and they follow him. By the time he reaches to a point near the elephant he has people in thousands of numbers following him. Thus to maintain his stand he kills the helpless elephant who does not do any harm to him. The elephant dies in pain as it takes a very long time for it to actually lose its life after it has been shot. The pain presented by Orwell seems very real and it makes one pity the elephant. He explains the condition of the elephant by saying, “His body did not even jerk when the shots hit him, the tortured breathing continued without a pause. He was dying, very slowly and in great agony,.” George Orwell has composed this story in a manner which makes it seem real and the reader feels that he is present all the time in the story himself. Orwell’s presentation of Burma which is a third world country is very convincing and looks real. This is presented when he describes the quarter where the officer goes to meet his colleagues, “It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palm-leaf, winding all over a steep hillside.” Steven Pinker explains the fact that morality is an essential part of the human being and serves in a similar way as do the senses. It functions to assist the human beings in reaching to a decision. He presents a perfect example of morality when he gives a comparison of Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug who are all important figures and have assisted and served humanity in one way or another. Despite of this most of the people would choose Mother Teresa over the other. It is morality within a human being that makes him choose this decision. This is expressed by Pinker in these words, “But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish.” He explains that, “Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense." He explains that morality is an important principle and a moral life is far more successful than its counterpart. He presents the fact that morality can be classified according to five basic standards in all cultures which include harm, fairness, community, authority and purity. He explains that these are the basic moral values followed in every culture and the basic difference exists just in the use of these principles according to different standards in the different cultures. Hence he works towards explaining the fact that all cultures share a similar ground on morality and for better cultural cooperation and harmony it is essential that this factor should be understood. Milgram’s arguments are related to experimenters teachers and learners. The author clearly has successfully made his point to the readers about obedience and moral instincts. The experiments mentioned in Stanley’s essay clearly show that they were done to test obedience over morality. He makes a strong argument because he shows that several researches were carried to find out as to if people from different ethnicities are considering obedience over morality or not. He uses a different kind of language in the essay giving every detail about the tests and how they were performed. He even quotes the experimenter and the teacher conversing at one moment which can affect the emotional side of a reader. As the teacher is quoted as saying “I think we are here on our own free will. I don’t want to be responsible if anything happens to him. Please understand that”. Taking the reader into the depth of the situation is the importance of this essay as it makes the reader understand the concepts of obedience. In my view it is this style of Stanley which helps him to provide an effective argument over all other writers. On the other hand Orwell presents with a specific incident about an officer in Burma. Orwell does not provide sufficient research to conclude that an individual would always act in the similar manner that the officer did in those circumstances. Orwell does not provide the readers with great depth about the situation in which the officer was working. He does not justify the action of the officer himself like Milgram does in his essay about obedience. Similarly Pinker talks about morality in his essay giving real life examples of individuals but this is not enough in comparison to Milgram. Pinker only talks about moral instincts relating to a particular issue about these individuals. He does not take the situation as a whole and talk about other aspects of life like obedience and morality. Ethics are also not incorporated into his essay which Milgram has particularly emphasized upon. The three writers presented their accounts with their own perspective but it can be clearly seen that Steven Pinker has a very strong point to make. His argument can be considered to be the basis for the officer’s act of shooting the elephant in George Orwell’s account. The officer did this because at that moment he was being pushed by the villagers into performing this act so that he might not be considered cowardly by them and that he would be able to satisfy them and hold his position. References: Milgram, S. Perils of Obedience. Top of Form Orwell, G. (1950). Shooting an elephant: And other essays. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Bottom of Form Pinker, S. (2008) The Moral Instinct. New York Times. Read More

Thus authority can make a person do things that he would never think about doing normally. Humans also possess the nature of trying to satisfy their superiors and this factor can lead them to performing inhuman acts as well. The society has molded human behavior which was very different than what it used to be. The competitions in the society and other changes have greatly altered the roles of people than what they used to be before. On the other hand George Orwell presented the account of an officer who was forced due to his circumstances to work on this post in Burma due to his low education level.

This is the story of the period when Burma was a part of the British Empire. The officer was extremely disliked by the people of Burma who used to harass him whenever they got a chance. He was also not very fond of the working of the Empire which followed harsh rules to maintain its integrity and rule Burma. His displeasure can be seen when he says, “All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited little beasts who tried to make my job impossible.

” He then presents an account where he was called by his officer to come and handle a stray elephant. When he reaches there and leaves to search for the elephant in the area, he carries with him a weapon for his defense. But every local believes that he would kill the elephant and they follow him. By the time he reaches to a point near the elephant he has people in thousands of numbers following him. Thus to maintain his stand he kills the helpless elephant who does not do any harm to him. The elephant dies in pain as it takes a very long time for it to actually lose its life after it has been shot.

The pain presented by Orwell seems very real and it makes one pity the elephant. He explains the condition of the elephant by saying, “His body did not even jerk when the shots hit him, the tortured breathing continued without a pause. He was dying, very slowly and in great agony,.” George Orwell has composed this story in a manner which makes it seem real and the reader feels that he is present all the time in the story himself. Orwell’s presentation of Burma which is a third world country is very convincing and looks real.

This is presented when he describes the quarter where the officer goes to meet his colleagues, “It was a very poor quarter, a labyrinth of squalid bamboo huts, thatched with palm-leaf, winding all over a steep hillside.” Steven Pinker explains the fact that morality is an essential part of the human being and serves in a similar way as do the senses. It functions to assist the human beings in reaching to a decision. He presents a perfect example of morality when he gives a comparison of Mother Teresa, Bill Gates and Norman Borlaug who are all important figures and have assisted and served humanity in one way or another.

Despite of this most of the people would choose Mother Teresa over the other. It is morality within a human being that makes him choose this decision. This is expressed by Pinker in these words, “But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish.” He explains that, “Morality, then, is still something larger than our inherited moral sense." He explains that morality is an important principle and a moral life is far more successful than its counterpart.

He presents the fact that morality can be classified according to five basic standards in all cultures which include harm, fairness, community, authority and purity. He explains that these are the basic moral values followed in every culture and the basic difference exists just in the use of these principles according to different standards in the different cultures. Hence he works towards explaining the fact that all cultures share a similar ground on morality and for better cultural cooperation and harmony it is essential that this factor should be understood.

Read More