Milgram Obedience Analysis

Obedience Comparative Critique
In “ Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments On Obedience” by Diana Baumrind, and in “Obedience” by Ian Parker, the writers claim that Milgram’s Obedience is ethically wrong and work of evil because of the potential harm that the subjects of the experiment had. While Baumrind’s article focused only on the Subjects of the experiment, Parker’s article talked about both immediate and long term response to experiment along with the reaction of both the general public and Milgram’s colleagues, he also talks about the effect of the experiment on Milgram himself. Both articles discuss has similar points, they also uses Milgram’s words against him and while Baumrind attacks Milgram, Parker shows the reader that experiment

Baumrind’s tone of the article was sarcastic and quite aggressive. For Example, “It would be interesting to know what sort of procedures could dissipate the type of emotional disturbance just described. In view of the effects on subjects, traumatic to a degree which Milgram himself considered nearly unprecedented in sociopsychological experiments…” Baumrind does not only use a sarcastic tone of voice, but she also use Milgram’s own words against him to show that the experiment was not accurate. While she was aggressive in her article, Parker had more relax voice of tone and he showed showed the experiment from the subject’s point of view, the public’s point of view and the experimenter’s point of view. With the different style and voice of tone, Parker explained the effects of the experiment from almost everyone’s involved in the experiment point of view. He also showed how the experiment affected Milgram not the just the subjects like Baumrind. However, Both of the writers had a same point, which is that people do what they think in it right this is why they are obedient and that makes Milgram’s experiment not quite accurate because the teacher was constantly worried about the