I suppose what I find strange with the whole society not comprehending what's occurring in front of them is as if they aren't capable of understanding that someone is being assaulted. In fact, the whole pharmacy incident would suggest that people do know what murder is and everything.
So when it comes down to it, I don't really think that they didn't really know what was going on was a valid excuse. Along with the bystander effect, another idea that might explain this scenario could be that people thought that the act was false entertainment or an act? Sort of like the initial confusion with mistaking corpses with art.
If I were to apply Sybil to real life, I think it'd just represent our governmental laws, and our ability to evaluate these laws. Sort of like the idea of conventional and post conventional morality by Kolberg. He's argued that many people are usually stuck in level 4.
Quote:
|
In Stage four (authority and social order obedience driven), it is important to obey laws, dictums and social conventions because of their importance in maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need for individual approval exhibited in stage three. A central ideal or ideals often prescribe what is right and wrong, such as in the case of fundamentalism. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would—thus there is an obligation and a duty to uphold laws and rules. When someone does violate a law, it is morally wrong; culpability is thus a significant factor in this stage as it separates the bad domains from the good ones. Most active members of society remain at stage four, where morality is still predominantly dictated by an outside force.
|