System Examples

Countrywide did nothing to help because it didn't have to. We live in a capitalist economy, and so mostly everyone (but not all) are in the game to make money. Countrywide is not a company intended to help the people it serves; it is meant to make a profit for those in the company (even though their services in someways help others). This man who had his house taken away is not their problem. They followed the law and their own personal rules, and so they did "nothing wrong and were doing their job". What should have been done was this: the letter from the foreclosure section of Countrywide should have sent the original notice in his language(especially if they had the "decency" to tell him that they were taking away his house in his own language), and should have had Countrywide's name on the envelope. After the house was taken, Countrywide should have realized that even though they did nothing "wrong", their system is corrupt and had unfairly hurt one of its customers.
Because I am not part of their system, I feel that they were in the wrong. Were I in the situation of that guy I would be so pissed because I was being unfairly screwed. I would hate to be in that situation, and so I can give him sympathy. On the flipside, if I were part of Countryside I would feel horrible, but I wouldn't do anything about it. What happened was not against the law, and he was treated like any other customer. If I were very high up in the company and had jurisdiction over these matters, then I would do something (like the 1st servant had the power to do). But as a lower employee (like the second servant) I would fear for my own job and well being. Also helping this guy might mean an overturning of the whole system, and if that meant hardship for me and the rest of the company, I probably wouldn't want it to happen. And that is the sad truth.


The Stanford prison experiment is realistic and scary example of how people with power abuse it. The study involved people who were normally nice, but as soon as they were assigned certain roles (prison guard-prisoner -->oppressor-oppressed), they conformed to those roles. The "guards" were given the power to do basically whatever they wanted to because they were given power over the prisoners. They became oppressors, I think, for two reasons. One is that there was this idea in the back of their mind that the prisoners had done something bad to be their (purely psychological). Therefore, they had to punish them for committing whatever wrong they had done. The other reason is that they needed to show their power. If your parents tell you not to do something but you know they consequences will be minimal, then you will probably go ahead and do it. In the same way, if a guard comes off as weak the prisoners will be given reason to not behave. The guards were oppressive because they had to show who was in charge, not only to protect the system, but also to protect their own sense of power and worth. And so systems make normal people behave badly because the people are benefiting from the system (self-worth, salary), and they can always hide behind the fact that they were only doing what was permitted or actually helping the oppressed. If you think about it, every situation that you face in requires an examination of how you might benefit and whether you can justify your actions. And so you can see systems have the ability to tip the scales on a normal and moral person's choice.

Carlos Moreno lived in Boston, where there was a lot of youth violence. When afterschool program funding was completely cut, crime rose and Carlos got involved in getting more jobs for youth and helped organizing addressment of these issues to state and local government. So why did he do this? The answer, I think, is that he saw something wrong and saw a way he could try and fix it. The information doesn't say if he had a personal connection with the violence, but I don't think that it needs to. I believe that everyone has the capacity to do something good or at least think of some way to help others. Some people, however, have a more of this than others and have more of an inclination to act upon them. Carlos would be one of those people. I think it is also important to point out that Carlos wasn't really taking any risks (accept using up his time and possibly his money). Even if his campaign failed, things would be no worse of than they were before.