How Norms Relating to Evil Can Change - Essay Example

Sociology of Evil Discuss using tortue as an example, give a sociological account of how norms relating to evil can change. To understand how societies around the globe have developed their cultural and ethical norms, one needs to study the fundamental concepts of good and evil instilled in their culture. Norms of a culture are divergent in its very nature and significantly rely on their producers, to make them malevolent or superior in nature. However, the rational fact of deficient societies cannot be ignored; deficiencies like violence, inclination towards torture and abuse can later on become the root cause of social evils in that society. Yet, these evil or diverse norms are not ideologically considered unethical by some societies, they are acceptable as they abolish or reduce another disturbing issue (evil) in their society (Gunning, 2007). For instance, Polygamy in some cultures (Western) is considered a serious offense against the opposite gender. However; some civilizations (Africa and Asia) consider it as a cultural, religious and ethical liability, to sustain balance in the population (via marriage) and to control the issue of adultery in their society (Lankford, 2009). The objective here is when evil is considered detrimental or inhuman then societies develop a perspective against it and if it becomes a part of socio-cultural norm to resolve an incurable issue (another detrimental social problem) in them then it is not evil, but a rational ethical code, which is acceptable by a specific society. According to the sociological theory of Absolutism, the wrong and right acts of an individual are predetermined by a society, hence, personal opinion and judgments on them do not change their veracity in a culture (Newman, 2013). However, deviance is one form of human behaviour, which is neither acceptable by the society nor is considered normal. Deviant behaviour includes violation of ethical, cultural and morals norms to an extent that they become unforgiveable. Moreover, there is ample evidence that via labeling society castigates them, so to discipline them and revitalize the value of good. Via labeling and punishing evil acts society marks its absolute regime to maintain balance and control. The behavioral explanation and causes of deviant traits in people can vary, as they can be psychological, social or genetic (Clarke, 2008). Deviant behaviour is closely related to evil and evil in absolutely condemned in any region of the world. However, the perception on deviant behaviour and evil may differ according to the norms set by a culture. Evil is described as an intentional conduct of violating the rights of another human being. These violations can be physical and psychological. In the due course, the deviant person (evil) destroys the life of an innocent individual by harming him physically, emotionally, economically or socially. The absolute damage can be taking his life. Immanuel Kant an eminent philosopher presented his theory of evil, which was considered secular in the olden times, as it did not contain any supernatural phenomena to become evil. However, his theory only determines that evil is an option by choice, which is not good in nature. Humans are prone to goodness and also inclined towards evil; hence, they are fundamentally independent to choose between both (Louden, 2011). However, not all the sociologist agree with Kant’s theory of evil. Instead they persuade the idea that evildoers feel certain joyful or contentment sentiments while indulging in the act of evil or wrong. Yet, another philosopher Laurence Thomas determined evil and it’s affects in an individual more extensively. He determined that malevolence does cause certain emotions in the committer, either they feel sentiments of joy or they feel detestation towards their victim. In either case they intend to cause permanent damage to their victim (Haybron, 2002). Physical damage in the form of torture is also a significant aspect under the observation of numerous sociologists. History of torture is profoundly implanted in social, legal and political revolution of any society. Thus, in the beginning of eighteen century law makers consciously and legitimately discarded the notion of torture as acceptable norm. Law on papers completely eradicated any form of torture practiced against the potential criminals to extract relevant knowledge. However, the practice (torture) did not instantly eliminate from the society due to its advantage by the political and governmental agencies, but for common public it became an illicit act, which was condemned by law and according to social norms (Hajjar, 2013). Torture is a form of violent aggression towards the victim and encourages dehumanization in many forms. It abolishes the human worthiness of both predator and victim. The deplorable fact is when law abiding agencies permit it to some extent for national or governmental means. This social or legal norm then creates numerous deficiencies in the social system. It produces an impression of injustice and prejudice in a society against the victim (belonging to a different ethnic, religious or regional group). Hence, within a social sphere it demoralizes the morality of a civilization, giving an impression of a self-possessed nation or government, which sacrifices it’s moral norms to gain short-term benefits. In modern societies, torture is considered illicit and pervasive due to the increased awareness of international human rights and law. Previously, slaves were entitled for any form of torture from their masters and this practice was considered acceptable by the Western society, as it was a way to teach them to obey. However, war crimes like sadistic torture, genocide, serial killings, abuse on prisoners have been a type of torture. These types of torture do remain a part of society as they become legitimate, when they are under an ideological notion of a nation or religion. For instance, sadistic torture was a part of routine interrogation in the prison of Iraq and Afghanistan and also a type of evil, which was considered acceptable and mandatory by the UK and US military to grasp relevant information (Parry, 2010). Nevertheless, even here the fact remains the same; air strikes, prison tortures and domestic violence for the sake of any objective do not change the fact that it violates human rights of innocents or victims by all means. Moreover, this also entails the fact that regional or national beliefs and objectives either from any standpoint do promote brutality and violence against humanity. Let it be the case of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or any other region of the world. According to Card, evil is a legitimate stand mark for humans, which enables them to focus on their actions and practices. This focus will in turn provide the inside of their good and bad actions. Hence, if the focus is kept aside then an individual would become ruthless and society has to bear the brunt of a deviant (2001). Moreover, he also believed that it is necessary to control and minimize domestic violence than to focus on wage difference of male and female gender. Simultaneously, he proposed that if an individual is able to understand evil and distinguish between his good and evil acts, he will consciously put forth his efforts to prevent or indulge in it himself. The Stanford Experiment signifies the fact that humans have the potential to endorse potential violence towards their fellow beings, when they them self become influential. Hence, such individuals become prime example of how absolutely normal men commit devious crime or violence against innocent fellow beings. The hypothesis of the experiment was that good people can commit crime and produce violence against others, if they are positioned in an influential post or in trying circumstances. Hence, social surroundings, unsupervised authority, trauma and potential opportunities can produce both negative and positive vibes in an individual. Thus, normal individuals can act violent and commit horrific crimes in the name of their personal morality (Lovaglia, 2007). The notion behind the abuse of power was ‘Labeling’, which made on -duty guards to torment the prisoner by their newly gained power. This theory describes how an individual involuntarily act or react in a manner that is expected by the general public. This perception of his social role or professional role influences his moral views and his whole being in a society. Recently, torture has been known with many new names like law enforcement agencies call it ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ and human rights organisations call it ‘domestic or regional violence’, law abiders term it as ‘violation of fundamental rights of protection’. Similarly, it is still prevalent in some form. For instance, during interrogation from Iraqi prisoners US soldiers took advantage of their powerful position and induced sentimental, psychological and physical torture on the detainees. The surprising fact was that the some team mates did not agree with this form of interrogation and hence, they posted virtual images of it online for the world to know that war on terrorism is actually producing more terror (in the form of torture) for the inlanders. The main objective is that evil and torture is recognizable, if not by all but by few members and these members become a source to condemn it (Andersen and Taylor, 2013). Torture does not remain in prison cell, but it is vastly practiced and usually it is uncontrollable phenomena if not reported to responsible authorities. According to ONS (Office of National Statistic) Report of 2012-2013, approximately 1.2 million women faced domestic violence and almost 330,000 female were sexually assaulted and harassed (Ending violence against women and girls in the UK., 2012- 2013) Hence, this arena of torture remains undetected behind the closed doors and only surfaces when the victim manages to voice it up. In any form, torture does not become acceptable for any society. However, in the modern era it has become acceptable by militaries to gain their national benefits. This practice has its own drawbacks, which surface in terms of terrorist attacks in secured places. Hence, evil and torture cannot become reaction less, if they are practiced by any society then probably they have to face its detrimental outcomes as well. Bibliography: Top of Form Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2013). Sociology: The essentials. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Bottom of Form Card, C., 2001, “Inequalities versus Evils,” in Controversies in Feminism, J. Sterba (ed.), Oxford: Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, Inc, pp. 83–98. Top of Form Clarke, E. J. (2008). Deviant behavior: a text-reader in the sociology of deviance. New York, Worth Publishers. Ending violence against women and girls in the UK - Policy - GOV.UK. 2012-2013, [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/ending-violence-against-women-and-girls-in-the-uk. [Accessed 19 May 2014]. Bottom of Form Top of Form Gunning, J. (2007). Ethics, law, and society 3. 3. Aldershot [u.a.], Ashgate. Top of Form Haybron, D. M. (2002). Earths abominations: philosophical studies of evil. Amsterdam [u.a.], Rodopi. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Hajjar, L. (2013). Torture: a sociology of violence and human rights. New York, Routledge. Top of Form Lankford, R. D. (2009). Polygamy. Detroit, Greenhaven Press. Top of Form Louden, R. B. (2011). Kants human being: essays on his theory of human nature. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Top of Form Lovaglia, M. J. (2007). Knowing people: the personal use of social psychology. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Newman, D. M. (2013). Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life : brief edition. Thousand Oaks, Calif, SAGE. Top of Form Parry, J. T. (2010). Understanding torture: law, violence, and political identity. Ann Arbor, Mich, Univ. of Michigan Press. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Read More