What Does It Mean To Be A Person In Modern Society

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity”, these are the quotes of the famous German physicist Albert Einstein in relation to how the world has become overly reliant on technology. As a result, we have taken nature for granted while also ignoring the adverse effects of technology. The making of steam engine, the usage of fossil fuel and the creation of chlorofluorocarbon are all technologies which has benefited us greatly and are continuing to do so, but like everything on this earth there are always negatives to counter the positives This is the balance that we must find between nature and humans.

Mob mentality and herd behavior have a negative behavior on people because of their individuality and rational thinking. People are influenced by others behaviors in a group. They can have negative and positive acts on people having individual thinking and it changes people's rational thinking. In the teleplay “The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street” written by Rod Serling, the article “When Good people Do Bad Things” written by Ann Trafton, and the article “Why Do People Follow The Crowd” reported by ABC news, when someone does not want to share their own idea they do not feel like sharing as a groups. People can also act differently in a group because they do not want to be embarrassed with others.

Learning how to work effectively in a group situation is key to success in many professions as well as in social situations. Groups vary from each other based on the individuals that make up each group, all of us belong to various groups at one time or another. The roles that we fulfill vary from group to

The relationship between the individual and society is not just something found throughout human history, but also within the pages of a literature classic. From the first days of settlement in America, to racial tensions and slavery, to the development of capitalism, there has always been a relationship between the individual and society that is reflected in the written pieces of each time, revealing the connection between oneself and the collective spanning across the centuries. ‘The Scarlet Letter’, written in a Puritan world, and ‘Bartleby, The Scrivener’, written in capitalist America, are two key examples of literature that expose, detail and discuss the relationship between society and the individual in American history.

This is modeled by the fact that people being in groups, causes them to act and think differently than they would have if they had been alone. In her essay, Tavris uses many examples of this: In the case of Kitty Genovese or the late Rodney King who was beat to death by police officers. People have a tendency to act differently in groups, others suffer due to people not wanting to “rock the boat” or they do not want to “embarrass themselves or others if they are wrong” (19). Tavris offers a solution to the way people act in groups, “By understanding the impulse to diffuse responsibility, perhaps as individuals we will be more likely to act. By understanding the social pressures that reward group-think, loyalty and obedience, we can foster those that reward whistle blowing and moral courage. And, as a society, we can reinforce the belief that they also sing who stand and watch” (19). If civilization can solve the dilemma of people acting differently when they are in groups with others, the world could be a much improved place.

Who has determined these set of morals and that they are the right way of living? People are going to do what makes them happy. If believing in morals and having faith make a person feel better and in turn they live a happy life.

Within the modern world, and the modern thought process people have about our connection with new technologies is one of constant expanse. All caution is thrown to the wind in an attempt to satisfy one insatiable hunger for a certain type of keeping up with the Jones-es. Many authors speak on the wonder of technological advances on society by the exact means of how they work, however, Richard Louv is not this kind of author. He presents technology as useful, but with an underlying tone of a technological numbing agent. We begin to only see it instead of what Earth has given us millions of years. Technology is only a certain part of the problem with the real problem being humanity's mindset toward our greatest asset, nature. Mr. Louv uses extremely profound and intelligent rhetoric to push forward the idea that us as humans are already so broken away from nature, that eventually it will be deemed illogical we used it for anything other than a means produce by it. Richard shows three areas we have really broken apart from nature with the three examples of ad space for parks, extra commodities for an SUV, and the genetic modification of animals.

When people are part of a group, they often start to deviate from their personalities, and tend to focus on the opinions and actions of the group. Groups can generate a sense of engaging energy, which can lead to behaviors that a person would not typically engage in if they were alone. People seem to believe that certain behaviors are acceptable when they are in groups that would otherwise not be acceptable if they were alone. Many people believe they cannot be held responsible for their actions when they are with a group because they see the

Growing up we find ourselves striving to be accepted, and to be loved by everyone. Although, that is just not the case, in Carol Tavris’s essay “In Groups We Shrink” she recounts the times she had experienced people not coming forward when something bad happened and she explains to us why she thinks this is. I agree with Tavris when she says, that when people are in groups, it causes them to act and think differently than they would if they were by themselves. When Tavris says, “The reason is not necessarily that they are lazy, cowardly or have 50 other personality deficiencies; it has more to do with the nature of groups than the nature of individuals” (Tavris 228).

In the book “After The First Death” many of the characters felt regret over their past actions. Miro felt regret over his past actions. The General felt regret over his past actions. Ben also felt regret from his past actions.

Regret not only helps progress the book’s plot, but it also gives appeals to the audience’s sense of emotion. Thanks to the character’s regrets, the audience in turn feels bad for them and forgives them. The character could do the worst thing, such as Novinha committing being unfaithful in her relationship, and we could forgive her. Ender killed off an entire species in the largest recorded genocide in history, yet we still forgave him. We have this feeling of forgiveness towards them not because we think it’s okay, but because we understand their circumstance and why they did

Morals are a constant force that do not change. If so called morals vary, they aren’t really morals. While it may be more understandable in a certain situation why someone doesn’t follow their morals, it doesn’t make it right. For example, if a friend asks for an opinion on their outfit, and someone lies to them to spare their opinion, it’s still lying, and therefore it’s immoral. The circumstances shouldn’t change people’s morals, and if they do, it’s a testament to the weakness of the beliefs held by the person themselves, not the situation.

In today's world, the real meaning of technology is not understood and known by all. Technological innovations do not worry people, unless of course, they are done to things we eat or use as medications or ones that affect our lives in any way. Often we do not think of things such as seedless fruits and antibiotics as technology. However, if we look deep into the meaning of technology, it is bought about my human beings and changes the environment so our goals can be met and in such a case even fruits become technology. (Cowan 301-326)

The morals of one is directly connected to his/her group. The person is seeking approval of the group and does specific things that are approved of the group. What is right is what the group or social community says is right.

Many people ask why morals should be able to prevail over people's desires. This is a valid question, one that must be answered if morals are to be defended. Morals must not only be reasonable for people to follow, but they must also have good reasons for people to follow them, otherwise people would not bother adhering to them. These reasons should motivate people to follow these rules. They must appeal to their perceived interests, but if these rules are to apply to all people, they cannot serve the interests of just a few people. Moral rules are not for imposing your own values and tastes on other people! As Narveson puts it, "[w]hat matters for morals is that its rules are individually reasonable for people to accept and to follow, so long as others do too" (MM, 16).