The Pros And Cons Of Stanley Milgram

731 Words2 Pages

The experiments on obedience conducted by Stanley Milgram shed a previously unforeseen light on human nature and the evil tendencies therein. Since it was conducted, many professionals have reviewed Milgram 's work and inserted their own opinions into the work. One of these many is Ian Parker, who, in his article titled "Obedience," critiques Milgram 's experiment with other professionals, thus stating that the experiment is corrupted and false in almost any way conceivable. Later, Parker states that the comparison asserted by Milgram to the Holocaust is quite a stretch, asserting that the Holocaust was nothing even near what was studied by Milgram (Parker 97). Many other established psychologists published their own works on this controversial …show more content…

Both Parker and Baumrind agree that placing people through such stress as Milgram did could play into serious mental and emotional problems later on in life. Throughout both of the articles, both authors draw from outside sources to effectually back up and prove their main points. Martyn Shuttleworth of Explorable states, in agreement with Parker and Baumrind, that since Milgram conducted his experiment, there has been a corporate reform in the way psychological experiments may take place (Shuttleworth). Baumrind and Parker both agree that what Milgram did was quite unethical, citing the American Psychology Association (APA) to prove that what he did could not be replicated in a modern scientific society (Parker 97, Baumrind 93). One of the most telling factors of the stress level in the tests were the participants mannerisms. Some sweated profusely while others sat and nervously laughed to themselves. Throughout the course of Milgram 's test, three teachers broke down and went into a state of uncontrollable seizure (McLeod). Events like these, state Baumrind and Parker, are reasons why Milgrams Experiment could not have taken place today. While both authors effectively substantiate the same claim, Parker draws upon many sources and uses factual evidence, while Baumrind mainly uses emotional appeals to prove the case of the …show more content…

Milgram believed that what he found, this completely blind obedience, could help to explain why people would commit such atrocities. While Milgram believed this to be true, Parker and Baumrind do not. In "Blind obedience had Dire Consequences to Nazi Germany and Hitler," Andrew Azzopardi, uses the stories of many Nazi 's to prove the whole point of blind obedience (Azzopardi). Also, an article published by Santa Clara University gives rise to the idea that blind obedience and the power of situations most definitely play a role into the Holocaust conversation. (Velasquez, et.al.) Even Adolf Eichmann, the grand organizer of the concentration camps, who himself was sickened by the camps said, "I was one of the many horses pulling the wagon and couldn 't escape left or right because of the will of the driver." Thus proving that even established men and women in these circumstances will follow orders. But if all of these are true, it must mean that the central ideas brought by Parker and Baumrind are false, thus compromising the integrity and credibility of their works. These contradictions do play into the effectiveness of the works from Baumrind and Parker, but overall they still logically and fairly convey the points they work to

Open Document