Stanley Milgram's Essay: The Perils Of Obedience

In the article "The Perils of Obedience" Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, recounts an experiment where he tested how people's obedience varies under extreme circumstances. He discovered having a higher authority in the room dramatically increases obedience (Milgram 88). Meanwhile, in the article "Obedience," Ian Parker, a British writer, is not as quick to jump to conclusions as Milgram. Instead, Parker cites needed information that is missing from Milgram's article. In Stanley Milgram's infamous 1963 experiment, he investigates precisely how far people will go to hurt someone, while still obeying orders from an authority figure. Although it is torture, a portion of the people continue to administer pain upon the test subjects because they are being obedient and following orders. Milgram and Parker both convey strong arguments for their respective points, despite disagreeing on several matters.

According to Arthur Rodrigo's article "Milgram Experiment Analysis", the factor of diminished responsibility has always shown to increase obedience.

(Rodrigo) Thus, when the higher power in the room is the one telling them to keep going, the experimenters feel as if it is not their responsibility and they continue with the shocking. However, Parker criticizes Milgram for not conveying all of the information about the experiment. Parker expresses that the test subjects had no way out, or felt trapped, like they had no alternative to obeying the authority figure (Parker 98). The power of situational influence on obedience in society has tremendous implications, as shown by Milgram in this experiment. In an article by Saul McLeod titled "Milgram Experiment", he goes as far as to say that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extend of killing an innocent human being (McLeod). When people are placed in situations such as Milgram's experiment, one's own beliefs and morals can easily be

abandoned.
Another question raised by Parker is whether or not Milgram mistreated his subjects; although it was reported that there was "no evidence of any traumatic reactions" (Parker 99). Despite one test subject reported of having suffered a mild heart attack (Parker 98). The test subjects were told to remember that doctors routinely hurt people in a thoroughly good cause; but if this is true, did the test subjects truly believe this was a good cause? Teachers were instructed to treat silence as an incorrect answer and to apply the next shock, disregarding any feelings. Since the experiment took place in 1963, it has been widely attacked from within the profession and from outside (Parker 98). The controversy has followed Milgram everywhere he has gone. Parker explained, "...the experiment was a mixed blessing: it would both make his name and destroy his reputation." Parker proceeds to account how this experiment has had a negative effect on Milgram's life.
Parker even goes as far as to correlate Milgram's experiment to the Holocaust. Parker says, "the experiment only helped to make sense of the Holocaust." He is suggesting that the soldiers were only complying to the orders given to them, comparable to the Nazis. This demonstrated that everyone retains the potential to become a murderer, that is, if they were ordered to do so by an authority figure. In an interview with Arthur G. Miller, Parker states, "once the Holocaust connection was in place, then the experiments took on a kind of larger-than-life quality". This was another attempt to destroy Milgram's image and reputation.
While Milgram had "caught evil on film", Parker effectively communicates countless flaws within Milgram's experiment. Both authors examine the validity of Stanley Milgram's 1963 experiment at Yale, and the effects this experiment has had since. Although Milgram and Parker both possess distinct contradictions, the two are effective in their approaches.