Zimbardo Good Vs Evil

“The majority of people can get seduced across the line of good and evil in a very short period of time … [;they] don’t want to accept the notion because it attacks our concept of the dignity of human nature” (Gino 3). The difference between good and evil is taught to be as simple as black and white; one is either a hero or a villain. In reality, the difference between the two is like trying to distinguish neon yellow from neon green. Good or evil is not always a simple ultimatum; what defines a person as good or evil is when they cross a highly inconsistent battleline of the two forces and align themself to distinctly to one side. The line of good and evil is not set location, but a moveable and interchangeable perception. No one is born evil: “research … shows that it is much easier to step over the boundary from ethical to unethical if there is a gradual erosion of moral values and principles rather than one big leap” (Tugend 2). Becoming villainous is a slow progression, making it difficult to …show more content…
Zimbardo had stated that “[he believes] situational forces dominate most [individuals] at various times in [their] lives, … even though [everyone would] like to believe [they are] that singular hero who can resist [the] powerful external pressures” (Dittmann 3). Situation forces a decision and action to be made, to go one way or the other or backwards. All want to believe they are different, however they will not know until they are in the situation themself. Situations determine action; it has the power to inflame evil or bring out the hero (“The Psychology of Evil”). A situation brings out the hero and villain because it allows an individual to act in their best interest. To be good or evil is determined by which action is in their best interest; a hero will always choose to do the unlikely and assist others. The choices the individual makes in a situation is what defines them good or