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"? [RI.9]

Nietzsche’s philosophical thoughts on morality argue that a moral code is not in our nature, while Zimbardo’s argument is that we shouldn’t expect our decisions to be influenced by morality alone. Nietzsche’s thoughts on morality are grounded in opposition to Christianity. He begins his argument by quoting from the Bible, “If thy eye offend thee, pluck it out,” before labeling the Christian idea as “stupidity” (Paragraph 1). Nietzsche argues that sensuality is in opposition to Christianity and that the church “always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immoralists and Antichristians” (Paragraph 5), adding that “Life has come to an end where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins” (Paragraph 8). In contrast, Zimbardo

bases his argument on science and proposes that the electric shock

experiment by psychologist Stanley Milgram “provides several lessons

about how situations can foster evil” (Paragraph 5). He also uses

conclusions from a 1974 experiment by Harvard anthropologist John

Watson, as well as his own simulated jail experiment, the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, to help support his argument.

there are many cases in the crucible where propaganda is present, the types of propagandas that are shown are: bandwagon, testimonial, transfer, and card-stacking. the crucible is mainly focus on the ancient beliefs that people from towns had, if someone didn’t follow the rules they would be punished.

im the one that plot xxx murder