Question

2) How would you compare Zimbardo's argument that situations cause people to act in bad

ways in "What Makes Good People Do Bad Things?" to Nietzsche's philosophical thoughts on
morality in "Morality as Anti-Nature"?

Answer 1

Nietzsche says that morality is not something natural to our organism, while Zimbardo believes that morality is a construction of the environment that surrounds us.

Step-by-step explanation:

For Nietzsche, morality is not something that exists naturally in human beings, we are not born with an already established moral code, we do not maintain morality in all situations. For this reason, we are always desiring the destruction of something or someone, no matter the degree of our morality, since even Christians desire the destruction of some groups of people.

For Zimbardo, on the other hand, morality arises in relation to the environment that surrounds us. For this reason, it is necessary for us to stimulate our sense of justice and not to tip or place morality as the certainty that we will be just and moral.

Answer 2

In the text, "What Makes Good People Do Bad Things?" Philip G. Zimbardo argues that everyone has the capacity to commit evil. He defends the idea that people are neither "good" or "bad," but that instead, people are pulled into either direction as a consequence of their circumstances. Some of the elements that Zimbardo uses as catalysts for "evil" behaviour are deindividualization, anonymity of place, dehumanization, role-playing and social modeling, moral disengagement and group conformity.

Nietzsche's argument in "Morality as Anti-Nature" shares some commonalities with Zimbardo's view. Nietzsche also believes that all men are capable of good and evil, and that evil is therefore a "natural" part of people. He also defends the power of ideologies, such as morality, in shaping behaviour. However, his opinion is different from Zimbardo in the sense that Nietzsche does not necessarily think that people should strive to listen to the good and stay away from the bad. He believes this to be an absurd precept of morality. Instead, he wants people to stop thinking on this terms and instead practice understanding and approving of every part of us.