Question: In what way and to what extent can science and technology be used for good or evil?
As a society, we’ve established what can be classified as ‘good’ and as ‘evil’, and without evil, there is no such thing as good. If the question, “what would you describe someone who regularly donates to charity as?” was asked, the frequent response would be “a good person.” If the question, “what would you describe someone who has murdered a person?” was asked, the answer becomes blurry. Instead of a direct response, questions like “why did they kill?”, “were they attacked?”, “was the murder justified?” would resonate on the tongues of the questioned. Regardless of the inquiries, the answer almost always boils down to “they did a bad thing, they’re a sick, evil person”. But who are we, human beings, to decide who can be good or evil and when has this debatable question been taken to extreme lengths? Well, this is where science and technology come in. In the United States justice system, the combination of science and technology, two inherently 'good' things, can be interpreted as good or evil when we study the history of the electric chair: one of the few exceptions to a ‘good’ murder. Since its initial use in 1890, the electric chair’s usage has been a widespread debate across the nation. Despite your personal beliefs, the purpose of the electric chair can be deemed as 'good' in terms of ridding the earth of an ‘evil’ person. But the story shifts when we open our eyes and realize that the technology that is the electric chair, in layman's terms, is justified murder. Ironically enough, if we refer back to the question “what would you describe someone who has murdered a person?”, and analyze it in this situation, shouldn’t this technology be deemed as evil as well? What makes the electric chair the exception? Murder is murder. The electric chair was built for that specific purpose, so why do we, human beings, have such trouble classifying it as evil? The electric chair, along with other execution methods, give human beings too much power over one another, especially taking into consideration how personal beliefs can sway a jury into their decision of legally murdering an individual. Take George Stinney Jr. for example, the youngest person in America to be executed in the 20th century. In 1944, George Stinney Jr. was proven guilty of the murders of Betty June Binnicker, age 11, and Mary Emma Thames, age 8, by an all-white jury in a 10-minute-long deliberation. On June 16, 1944, the electric chair killed a young African American who did not get a fair trial. Of course, looking back, it's recognized that the electric chair was used out of prejudice, racism, and clearly pure evilness. However, at the time, it was seen as a form of justice and a form of good. The caricature of George Stinney Jr. as a disgusting, vile black man is what lead to his death. Racism lead to his death. The constant hyperbole of black men being angry, violent people is what lead to his death. The existence of the electric chair is an entire contradiction in and of itself: an execution tactic to kill murderers. Depending on where you stand on a case, the prosecutor or the defendant, you may recognize when the usage of the electric chair is out of good intentions or pure malice. You may see it as a form of justice, an eye for an eye, a life for a life. However, the question still remains: how can we justify something that’s meant for evil?
1 Comment
Lau Brown
5/20/2021 02:24:49 pm
I totally agree with your point of view. Very convincing and engaging topic. Thank you for sharing!!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHi! I'm La'Kennya Huggins and I'm currently a senior in high school. This blog is primarily for my college course. Archives
November 2021
Categories |