Jun 07, 2011 00:50
Hi!
Just a thought on Debate 109. This pissed me off first time around too. Why didn't anyone argue against innate characteristics!! People aren't inherently anything! It shocks me that two intelligent people like Annie and Jeff aren't in favour of nurture over nature.
And even if they really had to argue for inherent goodness or evil (which, btw, is preposterous because good and evil are human constructs that are completely subjective and cannot exist a priori) then they could have done it so much better. Like, a great argument for inherent evil would be to use the example of evolution and survival of the fittest.
I'm sorry. I know it's just a TV show and the story is the focus rather than the debate, but as a student of philosophy the way they show this debate pisses me off no end.
~Lili
PS: although major kudos for using Zimbardo :D
PPS: ok, wait they did use survival of the fittest. But I still rant because THEY SAID TELEMARKETERS ARE EVIL! WE ARE JUST MISUNDERSTOOD!
Especially the ones that don't do cold-calling. Like moi.
psychology,
rantish,
community,
philosophy,
community rewatch