Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Obedience to authority summary
Impact of obedience to authority
Essays on milgram's experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Obedience to authority is shown in many ways, often times a person obeys another person because he or she is influenced by a stronger power, whether it being wealth, intellect, experience, or a higher position. In the essay The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram a study is performed where a “teacher” and a “learner” are placed in a room and the “teacher” is told to recite a list of words to the “learner” by the experimenter and the “learner” is required to name the second word back to the “teacher”. If the “learner” does not name the the correct word they are shocked for the “teacher” to witness. If the “learner” continues to name the wrong word they are shocked again, but with the shock level increasing every time. In the second essay, …show more content…
The Stanford Prison Experiment written by Philip G. Zimbardo a psychological study was carried out about life in a prison. College students were treated like a prison would be treated and guards treated the prisoners like they were supposed to be treated. Last in the movie “A Few Good Men” Lance Cpl. Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey are accused of murdering a fellow Marine, William Santiago at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. In the Marines you are taught to follow all orders by people with superior rankings, but certain orders may not be the most morally right thing to follow. Obedience to authority is not always a good thing I believe because your actions can get you in trouble, even if you are following an order from authority. In “A few Good Men” Downey and Dawson are ordered to perform a “code red” which is a type of hazing Marines will use if a fellow marine fails to show satisfactory work such as not keeping their bunk clean or falling behind in runs.
But, Dawson and Downey's code red does not have the outcome they expected. The soldiers they were administering it to, Pfc Santiago started to bleed at the mouth and eventually pass away after the two Marines tied him to a chair and stuffed a rag in his mouth. But, the two Marines were just following an order given to them by a superior officer. Just like in the test in The Perils of Obedience, the “teacher” was just following orders given to them by the experimenter who was in charge of the experiment. Both of these instances are examples of obedience to authority. Dawson, Downey, and the “teacher” did not recognize that the orders given to them were all were absolutely erroneous, they were just being adherent to orders given to them by a superior ranking …show more content…
person. All authoritative power is usually followed but in some instances it is not.
In “The Stanford Prison Experiment” the inmates rebelled on the second day of the experiment and barricaded themselves inside of a cell with their bunks. The guards fought back by shooting a fire extinguisher at the inmates. The guards then proceeded to strip them naked, take their beds away, and place them in solitary confinement. This event connects back to the fact that Dawson and Downey had to control Pfc. Santiago because of his failure to conform to the Marine code “Unit. Corps. God. Country.” The Marine code is a very important motto for all Marines and is expected to be followed by all. But, Pfc. Santiago lacked code according to his superior officers and that is why he was administered the “code red” by Dawson and
Downey. Blind obedience is essentially doing something because you are told, and you adhere to the rules because they are the rules. The Perils of Obedience, The Stanford Prison Experiment, and “A Few Good Men” all have instances where blind obedience takes place. In the Perils of Obedience the intent of the “teacher” was never to injure the “learner” but they were instructed to do so, so they followed to instruction no matter what the outcome portended for the innocent “learner”. Blind obedience factors into The Stanford Prison Experiment when the prisoners start to break down, the simulation was scheduled to last two weeks but was aborted after only six days do to prisoners health and escalations of the guards brutal punishments. The guards did not know what harm they were causing the prisoners, but they had no idea they were doing it because they were just doing what Zimbardo directed them to do. The murder trial and dishonorable discharge of Lance Cpl. Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey aspired in distinction to blind obedience caused by devotion to the Marine Corps. The men were so distinctly consumed with following orders and duties that they obeyed an order to carry out code red without taxing their consciences.
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. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
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.
The question of why these Marines obeyed the “Code Red” may be answered by Stanley Milgram’s conclusions from his experiment on obedience. When asked by Kaffee, while...
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
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
... More people followed their direct orders and continued shocking the learners to the very highest voltage. Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own natural instincts. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world examples, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures.
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, in 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
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.
The two Marines did not understand why they were charged with his murder, claiming, “We didn’t do anything wrong.” They claimed that they were only following orders from a superior. To explain the Marines’ behaviors, Milgram would argue that the Marines fell to the pressures of authority. In the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram tests the psychological affects on the “teacher” rather than on the “learner” (Milgram 78) About two-thirds of the test subjects were completely obedient and used the 450-volt shocks, and all of the participants used the painful 300-volt shock (Milgram 80). With these surprising results, Milgram deducts that many of these test subjects carried out these actions because of the authority figure in the room. Coming to a final conclusion, Milgram states that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (Milgram 86). Obedience to authority is ingrained in children from the day they are born, and they are raised to be obedient and this is why many people are obedient. With Milgram’s conclusion, it would be logical to assume that he would argue that the influence of authority is why Dawson and
Besides, his actions continued to be abusive when Claudio’s sister, Isabella, comes to beg for her brother’s life. He proposes Isabella to sleep with him and only then he would agree not to sentence Claudio to death. In this case, he also uses his authority to gain what he wants, which is obviously an abuse of power. Another example of the abuse of power is in “A Few Good Men.” In the movie two U.S. Marines, Dawson, and Downey, are judged in a court-martial for killing their colleague, Private Santiago and are defended by LT Kaffee with the assistance of Cmdr. Galloway. The defenders are suspicious about the details of the murder and the storyline about Santiago. According to it, Santiago was not respecting commands, requiring to be transferred and his fellow Marines decided to train him into a better Marine. They suspect that the “Code Red,” which is an extrajudicial punishment, was ordered and carried out by two Marines. De facto, “Code Red” was ordered by Colonel Jessep, and LT Kaffee can make him confess it under pressure in the court-martial. Thus, Colonel’s example also shows abusive behavior as he used his power to achieve what he wanted bearing in mind the fact that U.S. Marines could not disobey orders. Therefore, it could be seen that law enforcement does not always mean applying the letter of the law and following the rule
When put into the position of complete authority over others people will show their true colors. I think that most people would like to think that they would be fair, ethical superiors. I know I would, but learning about the Stanford Prison Experiment has made me question what would really happen if I was there. Would I be the submissive prisoner, the sadistic guard, or would I stay true to myself? As Phillip Zimbardo gave the guards their whistles and billy clubs they drastically changed without even realizing it. In order to further understand the Stanford Prison experiment I learned how the experiment was conducted, thought about the ethical quality of this experiment, and why I think it panned out how it did.
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
In the movie “A Few Good Men” we learn the struggles that private Santiago is facing. We hear in the beginning of the movie the letter Santiago wrote to request a transfer from his current base. Santiago was never granted his transfer and later was found dead. Lance Corporal Dawson and private Downey are accused of murdering Santiago, Dawson and Downey want to plead not guilty to murder because they state that they were ordered by Lieutenant Kendrick to give Santiago a code red. A code red is putting a recruit in physical or emotional harm due to their actions or if they don’t follow the Marine code. As the judge I find the defendants not guilty of the murder of private Santiago, I find the defendants guilty of conduct unbecoming on officer.