In psychologists Stanley Milgram’s article, “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram states that we, in our society, are beginning to comply with orders that are morally wrong and unjustifiable in order to satisfy an obedient figure. Milgram feels that obedience is an important aspect of society; therefore, he looks to prove his hypothesis that obedience to an authority figure can affect someone's ethical and moral compass. His states that a subject will blindly obey orders despite their morals and ethics. His theory is people will not intentionally inflict pain on another human being, which turned out to be very obvious that moral obligation to another is not as important as following orders. The results concluded that as long as the person does not feel totally responsible for their own actions, then he or she will likely go as far as they could to injure another human being for the sake of authority. Milgram was unsuccessful in showing that a subject would stop inflicting pain after a certain voltage threshold was reached. The method that Milgram utilizes is a simple …show more content…
psychology experiment consisting of two people. One of them is the teacher while the other is the learner, the teacher being the subject tested while the learner is just an actor. His initial experiment begins by placing the learner into an electric chair with electrodes attached to the learner’s wrist. The learner is trained to react in a certain way depending on the intensity of the shock given, those reactions vary from grunting in discomfort “to an agonized scream” (Milgram quoted by, Farris, Christine and Jessup, Deanna, 78). The teacher thinking that the chair is real not knowing that the chair isn't actually giving any electrical shock to the learner. The experimenter tells the teacher to read a list of words that will test the learner’s ability to think and remember the second word of a pair when he hears the first one again. If the learner is to give an incorrect answer, then the teacher will administer an electric shock to the protesting victim, with the intensity of the shock increasing every time the learner fails to give the correct response. Based on Milgram's hypothesis, the teacher should begin to show some signs of tension as he delivers more intense amounts of voltage to the protesting learner. The experimenter assures the teacher that he will take full responsibility for any harm done to the learner. Through his experimental design, researchers are able to conclude that 60% of people are completely obedient and up to 85% of the people obeyed in other countries around the world.
This indicates how most people, when asked to obey, will disregard their own individual morals if they do not feel totally responsible for the results of their own actions. During Milgram’s experiment, Gretchen Brandt decided to forego Milgram’s experiment because of the learner’s heart condition,which was part of the test to see how the teacher would respond. With her self-control and courteous behavior, Brandt is able to leave the experiment without causing any harm done to the protesting learner. Researchers are able to conclude that being calm and relax can in fact overthrow one’s unethical orders. The more relaxed one becomes, the more likely one will have total control over their thoughts, emotions, and
behaviors. Milgram’s experiment is meant to serve as a public warning, to prove that we must open our eyes to the potential dangers of blind obedience under authority. He feels that his studies will prove to the public how most people, in our society, would ignore their own moral and ethical codes to please authorities. Despite how obedience is being portrayed in our country, Milgram feels that his experimental design will one day influence the way we, as a society or individually, might become obedient to authorities in extreme circumstances. Milgram concludes that under an authoritative figure, that most people will remain obedient to the given instructions, even if it contradicts their own moral beliefs and ethics. When the experimenter told the teacher that he would not be responsible for the injury of the learner, the teacher is then more likely to deliver the maximum amount of voltage to the learner. His overall argument throughout the article demonstrates how our society can easily be persuaded to commit torture, or, in fact, murder an innocent victim just because we were obeying orders.
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.
Fromm, Erich. "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem." Writing and Reading for ACP Composition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Custom, 2009. 258-63. Print.
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.
The teachers would initiate a “shock” to the student every time they got an answer wrong, but the teachers were unaware that the shock was fake. As the experiment continued, the shocks became more severe, and the students would plead for the teacher to stop since they were in pain. Despite the fact, that the participants continuously asked the authoritative experimenter if they could stop, “...relatively few people [had] the resources needed to resist authority” (Cherry 5). The participants feared questioning the effectiveness of the experiment, or restraining from continuing in fear of losing their job, going to jail, or getting reprimanded by Yale. A majority of the participants were intimidated by the experimenter, hence why they continued to shock the students, even though they knew morally, it was incorrect what they were doing. This experiment concluded, “...situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining obedience...” (5). One's decisions are based on the situation they are facing. If someone is under pressure, they will resort to illogical decision making. There thoughts could potentially be altered due to fear, or hostility. In conclusion, the rash, incohesive state of mind, provoked by fear will eventually lead to the rise of
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 Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
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
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
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
If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with a real world example to make his article as effective as possible.
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 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
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Disobedience leads to severe consequences, as we have always been told. If an officer wants to pull you over, you pull over because you don’t want more trouble. If a teacher orders you to put your phone away, you do or it’s taken away. Authorities are known to lead you into a good direction, and keep you safe, so we follow, but when you’re directed into a bad direction what do you do? The milgram experiment tested that “obedience” factor in 1963. The results of the experiments were surprising.