1. In the first section of this chapter, Prof. Blumenthal sets out to further what he calls his "descriptive-analytic task" [as opposed to his "normative task" which will come later on] by analyzing the degree to which "[i]nsertion into a hierarchy which does, or which tolerates, evil facilitates the doing of evil."  He claims that the evidence for this is "overwhelming."  Describe and discuss the evidence provided by the following:


2. In the second section of this chapter, Prof. Blumenthal similarly argues the case that, "As insertion into a hierarchy works to facilitate evil, so it works to facilitate the doing of good."  What evidence was provided for this thesis by the Princeton Experiment?  What evidence was provided by the "Helping Distressed Persons" experiments?

3. What evidence does Blumenthal find for this second thesis when he looks again at the Milgram experiment?

4. What support for this second thesis did Blumenthal find when he analyzed the Rescuers?  What support when he analyzed the issue of peer support?  What is his general conclusion?  [NB:  middle of p. 45, bold type.]

5. In the next section (starting p. 45), Prof. Blumenthal suggests that "role and rule" also play an important part in determining antisocial action and responsibility.  What does this mean?  What evidence for this position does he find in the following:
(a) The Zimbardo experiment at Stanford and the conflict at My Lai;
(b) Hitler's professors;  and
(c) the SS?

6. In discussing "Role and Rule in Determining Prosocial Action and Responsibility," Prof. Blumenthal discusses a threefold typology of motivation that had originally been suggested by the husband-and-wife team Samual and Pearl Oliner:  there is (a) the empathically oriented motivation;  (b) the normocentrically oriented motivation;  and (c) the motivation based on "principles." Briefly discuss each, and mention which of the three seems to be the most common motivator among people.

7. This chapter (Chapter 3) is entitled "Hierarchy and Role."  What are Prof. Blumenthal's conclusions about the influence of "hierarchy and role" in facilitating and/or promoting prosocial and antisocial (a.k.a. "good" and "evil") behaviors?  What do you think?

8. Consider the education you are receiving at the University of St. Thomas in terms of the categories suggested by Prof. Blumenthal.  Is the education you are receiving encouraging prosocial skills and behavior?  Is it discouraging antisocial attitudes and behavior?  Explain.  Are the students who come out of St. Thomas any more likely to act in a prosocial way and less likely to act in antisocial ways than others precisely because of their St. Thomas education?  Or is it just the same, making no difference whatsoever?  If it's different, why is it different?  If it's no different, what does that say about St. Thomas's claim to be imparting a "Catholic" education and training "Catholic leaders" for the next generation?