Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, By Ron Rosenbaum. Reading makes you much better. Who says? Several wise words claim that by reading, your life will be much better. Do you think it? Yeah, verify it. If you require the book Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, By Ron Rosenbaum to read to confirm the wise words, you can see this page flawlessly. This is the website that will supply all the books that probably you require. Are guide's compilations that will make you feel interested to read? Among them right here is the Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, By Ron Rosenbaum that we will propose.
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum
Best Ebook Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum
The use of the term "evil" has become controversial. Many are reluctant to apply it at all - even to Adolph Hitler (psychological adjustment problems, you see). And while it is true that the word has been recurrently misused, if we abandon the idea that it is possible to commit a knowingly evil act, we must abandon our belief in free will. Consider the case of "Psycho-Cabbie"....
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum- Amazon Sales Rank: #159454 in Audible
- Published on: 2015-05-04
- Format: Unabridged
- Original language: English
- Running time: 48 minutes
Where to Download Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum
Most helpful customer reviews
110 of 111 people found the following review helpful. Attitude over argument By Mark P. The topic of evil is one I've had a personal and professional interest in for some time, so this Amazon Single piqued my interest. I'd read some favorable reviews of Rosenbaum's book on Hitler, and thought this would be an inexpensive way of getting a sense of whether I wanted to buy his book. I've saved myself some money, if this essay is a fair sample of his work.Setting aside the desperate need for copy-editing, the most significant problem is that he repeatedly substitutes a snarky attitude for making cogent, well-supported arguments. I can do snark with the best of them, but I recognize that I need to make actual arguments if I expect others to share my conclusions. Rosenbaum, however, repeatedly makes snide comments about neuroscience and other fields without ever bothering to present substantive arguments that would suggest they are wrong. I share his view that there is a determinism underlying much reporting on neuroscience research, but that does not invalidate a whole field of scientific research. If studies find a correlation between particular neurological features and people who commit heinous crimes, that does not automatically mean that they caused the criminal acts. Rosenbaum writes as if that is, indeed, the only conclusion one could reach, and then dismisses the research as a modern form of phrenology. He doesn't cite any neuroscientists making such deterministic claims, just news headlines that do, which rightly should lead to criticism of journalism. If there are scientific studies making sloppy claims of causality, then he should tell us about those.The biggest problem, though, is that much of the essay is driven by an a priori judgment that unless people who commit evil acts see what they do as evil, we cannot hold them responsible for their actions. Coupled with his belief that this is an unacceptable outcome, this leads him to dismiss any evidence that might suggest that people who commit evil acts may see those actions as justified -- perhaps even as admirable. While he acknowledges that people have made such claims, he quickly pushes them aside to return to his false dichotomy. This isn't a reasoned position; it's dogma. Rather than seeking to learn how evil-doers understand their actions and moving from there, he determines what he wants the answer to be in advance and clouds the issue by making a false dichotomy: either people consciously choose to do evil or people who engage in evil acts cannot be held responsible. Understanding why people act as they do does not logically entail forgiveness, no matter how many times Rosenbaum suggests that it must.
18 of 19 people found the following review helpful. Say what? By Charles S. Houser Ron Rosenbaum's RESCUING EVIL reads like a frenzied, loopy blog post. It is riddled with typographical and grammatical errors, the cumulative effect of which is to make the reader wonder how invested the author is in "getting it right" and making his argument(s) pursuasively. There is (or should be) a difference between posting and publishing. When I spend my own money to download a "book" from Amazon, I expect it to have been duly edited and vetted (if not peer reviewed ... there was no Acknowledgments page to RESCUING EVIL so I think it's safe to assume no peer was harmed in the making of this book). On the other hand, if I just want to hear someone sound off, I'll take a late-night ride on the J train.On the positive side, Rosenbaum (energetically) covers a lot of turf in his brief essay. And he drops a lot of names along the way, giving the interested reader hopeful leads for further reading and exploration. People interested in contemplating the reality of evil might prefer M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil.
19 of 22 people found the following review helpful. Rescuing Evil- Kindle single By Beverly Winchester This was a total waste of $1.99, and I do so hope that it is not a typical representation of Kindle singles. The editing & grammar was atrocious; it skipped all around. After the first page, I forced myself to finish it simply because I had bought & paid for it!
See all 11 customer reviews... Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron RosenbaumRescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum PDF
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum iBooks
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum ePub
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum rtf
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum AZW
Rescuing Evil: What We Lose, by Ron Rosenbaum Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar