1: Can you further explain the meaning of 'faith' as transcendent responsibility? Do you mean that faith is
one's ability to judge situations regardless of context? Is faith a context of its own, to be used to judge actions
in other contexts? Is 'faith' as used in the paper a specifically religious motivation?
2: You mention toward the end of the paper the notion of a transcendence-oriented culture, stating that
modern society is not transcendence-oriented. How is 'responsibility' treated differently within the context of
a transcendence-oriented culture? Can you explain the differences that make emergent evil more of a
problem in modern culture, as opposed to transcendence-oriented culture?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Why is it that emergence patterns lead to evil outcomes if all of the people involved are moral and just? Is
your paper implying that people are inherently evil in the absence of accountability?
2) How would an emergence pattern like the one described be avoided? If people in the right context will
perform evil deeds, how do we prevent it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1: I understand that all humans, be it intentionally or unconsciously, create context. My question is "why"?
What part of human nature or society makes us long for varied contexts in different situations? Do we have
some innate need to follow social norms?
2: Humans gain an understanding of context as they mature and gain a sense of rational and irrational
behavior. This becomes more natural and intuitive over time until contexts are no longer questioned or
even perceived. How can humans better address contexts and evaluate their effects? Is there a specific
method that is effective?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Why the emphasis on evilness? Is it not enough to examine the emergence of difficult, threatening, or
harmful situations? While the definition provided for evil is reasonable within the scope of this paper, the
very assertion that evil exists as anything besides an ideal is to give into subjectivity and blame. Is this
anthropomorphizing really necessary to prove your point? (Please also explain your attachment to "demonic"
and "goodness" (107).)
2. In the last page of your paper, you mention "the nature of evil." Given your response to question #1, and
your initial purposes when writing this paper, what is the "nature of evil?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) Even if most of the grunt work for a given project is done by underlings, somewhere along the way
someone in authority must have made the decision "We are going to prepare to kill civilians." This
decision would have instigated the murderous context, so wouldn't he or she be more guilty than the
underlings who were caught up within the context? Ex. Hitler vs. the average Nazi foot soldier.
2) Even if we see these patterns, how do we break them? Clearly, the system is designed to operate in spite
of a few conscientious objectors, so how does this information benefit us?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please explain the Figure 5. This is different from
the flow charts. I would like to know the logic behind this figure.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Why were Biblical references made, as opposed to an Ethics of Engineering Code? (for example)
2. In what ways do you feel and individual can break outside the context of a large corporation?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. When a government, organization or group of individuals conducts what we consider evil deeds, who
should be held responsible? since according to the reading we cannot just point to an individual as evil.
2. Who can we held responsible for the current violence in Mexico? The drug cartels fighting each other for
control? The Mexican government for its corruption and lack of opportunity? The US for selling the
weapons that end up in the hands of the cartels and for buying the drugs from the cartels. The Mexican
population for tolerating the violence?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. How do "demonic" and "short-sighted" differ?
2. If contexts limit the reactions of "a virtually infinite set of possible behaviors", how are they unlearnt? To
some degree can enablers/inhibitors (i.e. positive surprises, emotional swings, substances-alcohol) change
the range of the our possible behavior set?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1. Who is responsible for instilling a sense of transcendence into an entire population?
2. How can one recognize and stop systemic evil?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------