What If Daniel Sokol Summary

This makes the problems even worse. Jack wanted to be the leader. This raises the conflicts between Ralph and Jack. Things just go downhill from here.

When Mrs. Brant started with the experiment she had no problem with it at first. After starting to hear the learner's sounds of agony, she turned to the experimenter questioning him if she should continue; the experimenter without hesitation commanded her to do so. A second later she asked him again, then remarking firmly. She discussed with the experimenter about the learner's medical condition. In this particular case the learner has heart problems. The experimenter explained to Mrs. Brant that the shocks may be painful but they are not dangerous and again asked her to continue with the experiment. At that point she was not willing to ask the experimenter to stop anymore; she then wanted to ask the learner himself. She told the experimenter that she would continue only if the learner wished to. The experimenter once again told her she had no choice and that she was obligated to continue. She then refused to go further and the experiment was terminated.

The dilemma that could be identified with the BP Oil spill is no one wanted to take the blame when it first

In the experiment, people were picked randomly and one as a teacher and one as the student. They were told to take a quiz and give electric shocks of increasing intensity as punishment if the student can’t answer. During the experiment, many people were concerned as someone can be heard shouting but only a few people who decided to stop and stick to their morals. But the others kept on going because they were just following orders from a superior (Milgram 77). "The Stanford Prison Experiment” by Philip Zimbardo, is about an experiment that was made to understand the roles people play in prison situations. For the experiment, Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford University psychology building into a mock prison. The participants were told to act as prisoners and guards. It was planned to be a two-week experiment but was forced to shut down in 6 days, all because of people quickly getting into their roles and started acting like the real prisoners and guards (Zimbardo 104). To compare both experiments, although they differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim. Also how people obey under authoritative circumstances, when given power or different roles, however the writers differ in the seriousness of the fight for individuality and the use of reality.

Yet, if the support from the hydraulic jack wasn’t removed the night prior the cave-in could have been prevented, because the employees would have had more stable working conditions.

”If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” This small sentence known as the Thomas Theorem carries a lot of meaning in the context of our subjects. The idea of the Thomas Theorem states that if we perceive something to be reality, it will determine how the way we act and think in the situation (Alleydog). The Stanford Prison Experiment is seen in history as one of the most significant psychological experiments of it’s time, and the Abu Ghraib Scandal which happened 30 years later became famous for many of the same reasons. Because of the way this experiment was conducted and the way the real life prison was run, with little control and no intervention in how

As fallible humans, the decisions we make are not always good. If you compare it to today’s problem of climate change to the book, Ralph is the side that believes in focussing on the science of climate change, while Jack, like our president, is the side that believes in focussing on a populist agenda. Ralph had the idea of creating smoke for rescue, “...We can help them to find us. If a ship comes near the island they may not notice us. So we must make smoke on top of the mountain. We must make a fire,” (Golding 38). This was the logical way to go and focused on what they needed. While Jack and his hunters redirected the focus from getting rescue towards hunting for meat when they already had fruit. Ralph exclaimed, “...Don’t you want to be rescued? All you can talk about is pig, pig, pig!” To which Jack responded, “But we want meat!” (Golding 54). Jack is focussed on the immediate rather than the broader idea of getting food. In 2017, our president focuses on appeasing the masses by fixing things for taxes and jobs, while scientist and other

Most people think that killing is worse than letting die. The latter is a fact. Throughout her essay, Thomson explores this idea and comes to the surprising conclusion that it is sometimes permissible to kill instead of letting die. This along with the famous Trolley Problem, first introduced by Philippa Foot, as well as a few other examples and variations, leave the reader with ambiguity on the subject: exactly under which circumstances is it permissible to kill rather than to let die? In short, we can manipulate things around us –things that are unowned, but we cannot manipulate people for we do not own them (Thomson, p.14)

The real subject being tested is the teacher; the learner is an actor who receives no pain. The experimenters want to see how the teacher prefers to inflict pain on the learner rather than disobey the authority.

Even though the experimenter takes full responsibility of what happens to the learner, the teacher feels horrible about their actions. The experiment causes discomfort for both the teacher and the learner. As the shocks grow stronger, tension begins to arise inside of the teacher. Hesitating slowly consumes the teacher, but the experimenter commands him to pursue. After hesitation, the teacher’s ethics get in the way of what they are told to do.

“Ethics is the study of right actions to achieve good outcomes” (Mertens and Ginsberg). It is distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. (Resnik, 2015) No area of life or work is free of ethical dilemmas, and the research is no exception. (McCarthy, 1996) In 1971, the experiment was done by Dr Phillip Zimbardo. His aim was “to investigate how readily people would conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a role-playing exercise that simulated prison life.”

What if they tied them to trees and left them there? What if they threw them off of the cliff ledge that would assuredly kill them? There are an infinite number of possibilities, and an equally infinite number of outcomes. Neither the reader, nor can Luttrell ever know the answers to these questions. However, a famous 20th century physicist devised a thought experiment to explain a predicament such as this. Erwin Schrodinger, a famous Austrian theoretical physicist, devised a thought experiment to illuminate the faults in quantum theory, a new proposition in physics at the time. The experiment goes like this: a cat is placed in a closed box with radioactive material, a Geiger counter, a hammer, a glass flask of poisonous gas, and a timer set for one hour. At the hour mark, the radioactive material has exactly a 50/50 chance of emitting a particle (radioactive decay). If so, the hammer will be released, smashing the flask of poison, and killing the

Once Jack becomes obsessed with his desire for power, he becomes uncivilized and immoral. This is conveyed when Jack brutally shouts to the littluns, it would “serve you right if something did get you” (83). Jack used his power in this situation to convince the littluns that they would be safe from the beast if they followed him. If Jack would have been less focused on power, and acted more as a true leader he would have comforted the young boys rather than screamed at them. In like manner, Jack uses his control to order the others to roll the boulder at Piggy. Jack could have invited Piggy into his shelter, but instead orders his death. Jack does this because of the rivalry that grew between the two of them. The rivalry caused Jack to do a corrupt act, all in the name of beating Piggy. If Jack could have gained control of this corruption, he would have realized that he could have used his power to save a life instead of taking one. Finally, Jack forces the group to divide at a time when they need to unite. Since Jack wanted to have power and not be under the rule of anyone else, he left the group and convinced others to side with him. Instead of staying and and assisting the group, he dissociates with them which consequently leads to even more of a haywire society. If Jack was able to gain control of his desire for power, and

I would not have led the prison simulator experiment. Only because if I was a professional psychologist, I imagine I would know or have a concept of what the outcomes may be. If I did happen to do this study I would have dismissed it earlier as well. If I saw the guards abusing their powers and actually hurting the inmates, the experiment would be done. In the real study the narrator said that some of the footage was almost pornographic. That is absolutely horrifying not only to the viewer, but the person it is being acted upon. There would be no way a follow up study would be done. I would use the data I had managed to gather and determine outcomes from that, maybe use a projectile chart to see future

The trolley problem; the choice is yours to decide whether or not the lives of five people are saved by the sacrifice of another person. This moral paradox mirrors real-life implications in politics, society and war. In terms of killing and letting die: are we morally obligated to kill in order to save a larger group of people? It may seem that the moral standings of killing and letting die are the same as a life for lives seems completely rational. However, killing and letting die are completely separate identities as they operate on distinct plateaus of the human mind. Ultimately, killing is morally worse than letting