Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics in everyday life
The role of ethics in human life
Ethical decision making and behavior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Milgram’s studies on obedience to authority as well as obedience under extreme stress, paved a way to understanding the human psyche and how we handle choices we do not understand. As human beings we are given from a very young age a set of morals and standards we choose to live by. We see our parent’s successes and failures and we base the choices we make on what made them happy, and what will in the long run, bring us the same joy. From the beginning of the experiment you can see the pressure he starts everyone under. Where he chooses to begin his testing tells you a lot about what he was wanting them all to feel. A very rundown, dark, empty building with prison cell like rooms with sparse walls. Pipes showing and most likely a musty smell …show more content…
brings about memories, even if in the subconscious, of fear and somewhere they do not want to be. His authority figure of choice is someone who could be construed as an authority figure or as someone who you would not likely say no to. They are paid and told that no matter what happens they get to keep their money. Everything about this situation they walked in to just scream take the money and run but curiosity leads them forward. As they enter the prison style rooms they are given a choice of teacher or learner. As neither of them can choose they are given pieces of paper who we can lead to believe is a random draw but is still a complete setup. As “luck” would have it he draws the teacher card. So they begin to strap the learner into what seems to be an electric chair. He is told to tighten the straps around his very smooth arms. Lubricate the locations for the electrodes and make sure everything is secure. These first few tests were just the beginning of what looks to be a very stressful mind bending experience. He is taken into a room with nothing but a very dimly lit generator and a view of the other room. He is given instructions on what he is to tell the learner and when an incorrect answer is given he is to administer a shock of varying degrees between 15 and 450. This is the point in which every human has that fight or flight instinct kick in. they can choose to run from their problems and the stress or they can follow what seems to be instinct and stay the course. We see him begin to ask these word association questions and at first he seems to be doing well, and then we begin to see the downfall. With his first wrong answer comes the first shock. Which gives him a sense of arousal but betrayal. How can something so barbaric so chaotic seem so amazing and give a sense of euphoria. Farther into the test he begins to fight with himself about wanting to quit and run or keep on asking the questions. As he fights his feeling to just turn and say no he is repeatedly told to keep going and that the learner isn’t feeling much pain. We know this to be a lie but as we all know if you tell a lie long enough, they will eventually believe it. At this moment Milgram has found the answer to his study. When in high pressure situations, more often than not, we will do what we are being instructed to by someone who seems to know what they are doing and appears to have the calmer head. Milgram used his past experiences with studies of obedience to only further them with his own work. As we can see talking with his then assistant he says everyone including Milgram was very uneasy about it but they pressed on. Even in his own mind having to fight the feeling that what he was doing was wrong and still he continued. He had to fight past his own insecurities about right and wrong and ignore his own moral compass and lie to these people that what they were doing was real in order to get results. Many studies have shown this style of testing to be affective as proven by the results on his tests. His tests also proved another theory. We as humans from outside the box view ourselves as much higher and much smarter than we actually are. We also see ourselves as people who could say no to being given direct orders even in the face of punishment. But as the studies show, when it comes down to the wire and we are given the same choices, we begin to fall apart at the seams. We fall back into the trap of not being able to differentiate between right and wrong with enough speed to determine for our own sakes what to do in times of extreme pressure. We always pass the hat to someone who we see as a leader and let them make the decisions for us. As soon as the subject began to say no he was reputedly told to turn around and keep going. Never given the chance to formulate the words to express how he is feeling about the situation. Insubordination is shut down before it can even start. We read that he gets a hold of someone who swears that he was defiant. He describes exactly the situation he was put in and how it made him feel. He states that if he had continued through with all the shocks he wouldn’t be having this conversation with anyone but a psychiatrist. He paints an even more vivid picture of that night in Bridgeport. He says that it never crossed his mind that the experiment could have been fake. The blue sparks, the screaming, the lab itself still is plastered into his very soul. All of this came around because people needed to know, perhaps for some closure on what had happened in the holocaust. How so many senseless killings came into fruition with seemingly no objectivity? We learned that when given the choice between making the decision on our own or choosing to allow someone to lead us on, most of us will choose to let someone choose. Giving us an out if things go wrong. If someone had died from being shocked it would have allowed an out from being caught up in the senseless killing of an innocent person, being able to pass the blame on to someone else. Someone we don’t even know making decisions that will change the rest of our lives. “Blame is all around us-not just in politics, but in business, at school, and among family members. Perhaps even today you have either participated in-or hear someone-blaming others for a mistake, fault or error that has caused inconvenience or pain”. In a situation when we are questioned to make a decision on our own we normally start to stumble and let someone else make that decision for us which can end up hurting or causing someone else pain or even leading us into temptation. Do some people like to see others in pain even if it’s for fun or even for experiment? Most say people who cause pain are pathetic, and feel better about them when they can make somebody else feel inferior. They find it entertaining to torment another human being; some people like to see people suffer in pain because they find it entertaining. Making a decision by yourself or on your own is by fair is one of the hardest thing for someone to do. Most people will go to others for questions or for helping on the situation they are in and they will make the decision for them. This is where that other person should stand up and make that decision on their own because letting someone else make that decision for you, could end up really hurting someone else, for example, the Holocaust, Hitler was a leader of the Nazi army, he made the decision for everyone to go out and kill them none blonde haired, blue eyed people and the Jews. This was by far the worst mass killing of letting someone else control the minds of other people and tell them what to kill and hurt innocent people. Days go by when innocent people are hurt by other people, like bullying for instance, the minds of people and kids are by far the worst when coming to making a decision to hurt someone innocent, kids let the other half of their brains speak their actions. Per pressure has everything to do with this subject on letting other people make our decisions for us.
Speaking from experience I have seen an innocent human being get kicked around and beat up by some other kid older then him just because some other person tempted and talked the kid into doing it. By far that has been the worst thing and saddest thing I have ever seen in my life, how could someone be tempted to kick around some other kid just because someone told them to do it? I’m sure if the kid doing the beating was in the shoes of the kid who was getting kicked around would feel really horrible and hurt because letting someone do that to someone else is wrong to do. Temptation comes from the devil, he is the one telling you to do this stuff, telling you to hurt someone, telling you to injure someone just for pleasure and to make you think it is okay to do this kind of stuff to someone who is innocent and loving. As you grow older, you’ll be faced with some challenging decisions to make in your life. Some don’t have a clear choice or right or wrong answer- like should you listen to a person and make the decision to hurt someone or should you not listen to them. That is the decision you need to make. Making a decision on your own is hard enough, but when other people get involved and try to pressure you one way or another it can be even harder. Like said earlier in the essay, we pass the hat down to someone else to make the decision for us because we cannot make the decision
ourselves. We tend to make these decisions based on fear. Weather it is fear of rejection, fear of failure, or fear of death. If we leave the decision to others we believe the end result good or bad, has nothing to do with us. We will have complete deniability in every action that is taken and there for we will not feel bad if anything bad happens and we can celebrate when everything is a success. It gives us the out our subconscious needs in order to carry on our daily lives without having to skip a beat. A prime example happens all the time here in America. People choose not to vote because if something goes wrong its not their fault. They have achieved that plausible deniability that they have been looking for. This causes a downhill affect that is very unnerving in society today. Everyone chooses to pass the buck and no one makes the decisions. And when someone does we can all hop on the band wagon and either crucify them if we feel it is wrong, or celebrate with them like we were choosing all along. We can no longer just stick our heads in the sand and let others choose for us. By completing the experiment the subjects were letting others choose for them based on fear of not knowing the outcome and if something failed they had someone to blame, but as we read when everything came out ok they left with a sense of peace and confusion.
Milgram’s experiment basically states, “Be that as it may, you’d still probably commit heinous acts under the pressure of authority.” He also, found that obedience was the highest when the person giving the orders was nearby and was perceived as an authority figure, especially if they were from a prestigious institution. This was also true if the victim was depersonalized or placed at a distance such as in another room. Subjects were more likely to comply with orders if they didn’t see anyone else disobeying if there were no role models of defiance.
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
He believes the scientific advancements from Milgram’s experiment outweigh the temporary emotional harm to the volunteers of Milgram’s experiment. Also Herrnstein points out that Milgram’s experiment was created to show how easily humans are deceived and manipulated even when they do not realize the pain they are causing. We live in a society and culture where disobedience is more popular than obedience; however, he believed the experiment was very important and more experiments should be done like it, to gain more useful information. The experiment simply would not have been successful if they subjects knew what was actually going to happen, Herrnstein claims. He believes the subject had to be manipulated for the experiment to be successful. “A small temporary loss of a few peoples privacy seems a bearable price for a large reduction in
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
Stanley Milgram, author of "The Perils of Obedience," conducted an experiment at Yale University to see if average citizens would partake in a study revolving around obedience to authority (Milgram 78). In said experiment, a professor from Yale would give an ordinary individual the authority to shock another person. If the ordinary individual asked to stop, the professor would coax them to continue and remind them they hold no responsibility (78). Not only did Milgram 's study revolve around obedience to authority, it also stressed the point of every person could be capable of torture and doing so without feeling responsible. In the article, "The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism," author Marianne Szegedy-Maszak states, anyone can
In her excerpt, Baumrind discusses the potential dangers of the aftereffects on the participants of the experiment. On many occasions she suggests that these people are subjects of a cruel and unethical experiment, and suffer from harm to their self-image and emotional disruption (227). She also calls Milgram’s experiment a “game” (Baumrind 225); this illustrates her negative outtake on the experiment which is seen throughout the article. On the contrary, Parker discusses the aftereffects on Milgram himself. He expresses how the experiment, although it shows light to what extent of obedience a person may travel, ruined Milgram’s reputation. Parker also cites many notable authors and psychologists and their reactions to Milgram’s experiment. Despite their differences, Baumrind and Parker are able to find common ground on a few issues concerning the Milgr...
A former Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram, administered an experiment to test the obedience of "ordinary" people as explained in his article, "The Perils of Obedience". An unexpected outcome came from this experiment by watching the teacher administer shocks to the learner for not remembering sets of words. By executing greater shocks for every wrong answer created tremendous stress and a low comfort levels within the "teacher", the one being observed unknowingly, uncomfortable and feel the need to stop. However, with Milgram having the experimenter insisting that they must continue for the experiments purpose, many continued to shock the learner with much higher voltages.The participants were unaware of many objects of the experiment until
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
Comparative Analysis Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine). While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from escape and under control.
The experiment was to see if people would follow the orders of an authority figure, even if the orders that were given proved to cause pain to the person taking the test. In the “Milgram Experiment” by Saul McLeod, he goes into detail about six variations that changed the percentage of obedience from the test subject, for example, one variable was that the experiment was moved to set of run down offices rather than at Yale University. Variables like these changed the results dramatically. In four of these variations, the obedience percentage was under 50 percent (588). This is great evidence that it is the situation that changes the actions of the individual, not he or she’s morals.
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
At the Nuremberg War Criminal trials of World War II in 1961, Adolf Eichmann claimed that he had merely obeyed orders in organizing the Holocaust. "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?" (Milgram, 1974).In order to find out the answer of that question, Stanly Milgram, a psychologist, had conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He wanted to know would people really harm another person if they were ordered to by an authority figure even though that particular action is against their conscience.