The action of taking someone’s life can be seen as atrocious and unthinkable although it occurs time and time again. The article Simulating Murder tries to describe what is it that triggers people to take a person’s life. Multiple hypothetical case scenarios where constructed in order to simulate the act of murder. The laboratory controlled study focuses on the reasoning that produces human being to want to physically harm another.
Society has undergone heavy turbulence multiple times with headlines of massive killings in which creates tension among people. The question is what incites such action especially when morals and values are enforced in today’s education. When you asked someone if they are willing to kill another person, they will …show more content…
On this note the experimenters responded that people who do perform such actions of harm lack empathy towards the victim. Killers lack the moral compass that supposedly is integrated on everyone. Perhaps is their egotistical nature or their unwavering confused thoughts justified their actions as morally right. Is it ok to murder someone, even if that person potentially planning on creating an atrocious act. We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives. The study might hypothetical but they are true concerns. People tend to not perform an action if they find themselves as morally responsible for doing it. They have the need to find a justification for their actions as to not to be in discord with their guilt. Humans want to be quilt free which requires them to pin the blame on other for their actions. Murder is a huge crime, which goes to show that it’s hard to justify such action even if done for the sake of another. Free will goes into play in all this, which explains the classic scenario where one is made to kill someone unless they want to be killed or someone else gets killed. When stripped of their free will, people find it morally ok to perform actions of harm when otherwise they wouldn’t. Morality is a big factor but also can become an instigator to produce this
Society has undergone heavy turbulence multiple times with headlines of massive killings in which creates tension among people. The question is what incites such action especially when morals and values are enforced in today’s education. When you asked someone if they are willing to kill another person, they will …show more content…
On this note the experimenters responded that people who do perform such actions of harm lack empathy towards the victim. Killers lack the moral compass that supposedly is integrated on everyone. Perhaps is their egotistical nature or their unwavering confused thoughts justified their actions as morally right. Is it ok to murder someone, even if that person potentially planning on creating an atrocious act. We can bring self-defense into play to justified killing someone but not for the better good of saving other people’s lives. The study might hypothetical but they are true concerns. People tend to not perform an action if they find themselves as morally responsible for doing it. They have the need to find a justification for their actions as to not to be in discord with their guilt. Humans want to be quilt free which requires them to pin the blame on other for their actions. Murder is a huge crime, which goes to show that it’s hard to justify such action even if done for the sake of another. Free will goes into play in all this, which explains the classic scenario where one is made to kill someone unless they want to be killed or someone else gets killed. When stripped of their free will, people find it morally ok to perform actions of harm when otherwise they wouldn’t. Morality is a big factor but also can become an instigator to produce this