Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Obedience Study:Stanley Milgram
Obedience Study:Stanley Milgram
Introduction on the milgram experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Obedience Study:Stanley Milgram
The Milgram experiment of the 1960s was designed to ascertain why so many Germans decided to support the Nazi cause. It sought to determine if people would be willing to contradict their conscience if they were commanded to do so by someone in authority. This was done with a psychologist commanding a teacher to administer an electric shock to a student each time a question was answered incorrectly. The results of the Milgram experiment help to explain why so many men in Nazi Germany were recruited to support the Nazi cause and serve as a warning against the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the United States government.
The Milgram experiment was designed and performed by Yale University social psychologist Stanley Milgram in 1961. Milgram created this experiment predominately to determine what would have motivated Germans to so readily conform to the demands put forth by the Nazi party. Milgram wished to answer his question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (McLeod). At the time of these experiments, debates about the Nuremberg trials, particularly the trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the major perpetrators in the Holocaust, were still ongoing. At these trials, many Nazi party officials and military officers were put on trial for committing “crimes against humanity.” Although some defendants pleaded guilty, others claimed that they were innocent and only following orders that were given to them by a higher authority, Adolf Hitler. In the end, twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death, three to life in prison, four to approximately fifteen year prison terms, and three were acquitted (“The Nuremberg Trials”)....
... middle of paper ...
...’s initial false persona and promises to make Germany better. The Milgram experiment can be further extended to the use of “enhanced interrogation,” which can easily lead to insensitivity in the people who conduct such interrogations. The Milgram experiment serves as a significant explanation for the cooperation of Germans with the Nazi party and serves as a compelling warning for the future.
Works Cited
Bailey, Ronald. “Would You Have Been a Nazi?” 6 Jan. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
Cherry, Kendra. “The Milgram Obedience Experiment.” N.d. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
Larson, Erik. In the Garden of Beasts. New York: Broadway Paperbacks, 2011. Print.
McLeod, Saul. “The Milgram Experiment.” 2007. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
Ross, Brian and Richard Esposito. “CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described.” 18 Nov. 2005. Web. 6 Nov. 2013.
“The Nuremberg Trials.” N.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.
In the Article by Philip Meyer’s “If Hitler Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would You? Probably” discusses the Milgram experiment, and the readiness to obey authority without question.
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.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
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.
Many people believe they could never commit the crime of torture; yet, Milgram, along with many others, have discovered that the converse is true. At the beginning of his piloted experiment, Milgram predicted virtually all the participants would refuse to continue. He was proven wrong when twenty-five out of forty participants continued past the point of 150 volts (80). He surmised, as the experiment progressed from the piloted study to the regular series, the total out come of average persons response was the same as they had observed in the prior study--solidifying the thought even your "average Joe" is capable of torture (81). While Milgram supports this legitimate thought with facts, stories, and examples, news and world reporter Szegedy-Maszak simply states "...Everyman is a potential torturer"(76). In correspondence with both Milgram and
Applebaum believes that torture should not be used as a means of gaining information from suspects. Applebaum's opinion is supported through details that the practice has not been proven optimally successful. After debating the topic, I have deliberated on agreeing with Applebaum's stance towards the torture policy. I personally agree with the thought to discontinue the practice of torture as a means of acquiring intel. I find it unacceptable that under the Bush Administration, the President decided prisoners to be considered exceptions to the Geneva Convention. As far as moral and ethical consideration, I do not believe that it is anyone's right to harm anyone else, especially if the tactic is not proven successful. After concluding an interview with Academic, Darius Rejali, Applebaum inserted that he had “recently trolled through French archives, found no clear examples of how torture helped the French in Algeria -- and they lost that war anyway.” There are alternative...
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...
Ross, Brian, and Richard Esposito. "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described." ABC News. ABC News Network, 08 Nov. 2005. Web. 08 Mar. 2014. .
According to Wes Bertrand, author of "Abstract", states that "the degree of self- responsibility practiced by a person drastically affects his or her level of obedience to unjust commands" (Bertrand). Milgram related his experiment with Hitler 's Germany by relating that "the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-b into gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above" (Milgram 89). Baumrind supports his statement coming from one point of view; she argues that because Hitler made the Jews sound subhuman and not worth the extra effort, a subordinate officer slaughtering the Jews has no need to feel guilt because he was acting right within his frame of reference" (Baumrind 93). In agreement with Baumrind claiming the Jews were made subhuman, the article "German Jews during the Holocaust, 1939–1945" explains how they took their belongings claiming to use them to produce weapons for the war, the level of obedience and officers acting as they were ordered to by their superiors was necessary or tragedy might strike them as well.If what Diana Baumrind says is true, she is supporting Milgram by saying that the officer was acting right because he was told so, rather than disputing him; like the experiment when the experiment when the experimenter asked the teacher to continue with the
Clay, Catrine and Michael Leapman. Master Race: The Lebensborn Experiment in Nazi Germany. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1995.
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...
If you have been in a History class you have probably heard of an event that happened after World War Two called the Nuremberg Trials. These trials were conducted by the United States. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was appointed to lead the trials (Berenbaum). During these trials they charged with Crimes against the Peace, War crimes and Crimes against Humanity (Berenbaum). Many major Nazi leaders committed suicide before officials could hang them or before even being caught. The famous Doctor Goebbels killed his children then him and his wife committed suicide (Berenbaum). Only twelve out of the twenty-two who stood trial were hanged, twelve, while the rest just got prison time. Besides major Nazi officials, Physicians were put on trial, the people who were part of the mobile killing squads, Concentration camp officials, Judges and Executives who sold concentration camps Zyklon B. You can expect that they had many excuses, but m...
Our interrogation tactics have come a long way from using physical force to retrieve incriminating evidence, which was referred to as the “third degree”, to non-violent methods of obtaining information. We’d like to think that the system we have instilled in America is perfect and fair, but that is far from the reality. Although we have eliminated physical force from interrogations, the new equivalent implemented to the third degree is psychological torture. The nation-wide system used to interrogate potential suspects- the Reid Technique- is heavily flawed and corrupt. In his book Unfair, author Adam Benforado, unveils the truth behind modern interrogation style: it coerces suspects into producing false confessions by subjecting them to grueling
The techniques used by the CIA and military in the wake of 2001 involved stress positions, strikes, sensory and sleep deprivation. These Enhanced Interrogation Techniques have been compared to torture and torture lite. While strikes, stress positions, and deprivation leave no lasting marks, they were found to constitute "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" in an investigation conducted by John Helgerson the Inspector General for the CIA (Jehl 2005).
The Nuremberg Trials was unethically run and violated the rights of the Nazi leaders who were convicted of committing crimes against humanity. Primarily because the Allies sought to use the trials as a way to remind the Germans, who won the war ‘again’. Thus making it similar to the Treaty of Versailles in (19- ), through implying this notion of “Victors’ Justice”. Nevertheless, the Allies did to an extent ‘try’ to make the tribunal as ethical as possible,