learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please use the following quote and questions as a guide for your post. You should also refer directly to the documentary of the Milgram experiment as well. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes: “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.”

1. Do you think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others? What do the Milgram experiments suggest about the aspects of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others?

2. Do you think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide? What are the other factors that may come into play? What else, beside the blind following of authority, contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others?

3. What are some of the important factors and perhaps even personality traits that led the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment to disobey the ‘experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the ‘learner’? Can we attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures? Is there danger in that as well?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments (Cari Romm, 2015)

How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind (Joshua Barajas, 2016)

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment (Maria Korrinkova, 2015)

Rubrics to Review:

The majority of people have the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. In the Milgram experiment, it is revealed that once authority is established with the obeying of simple commands, a person is more likely to obey harmful commands if the magnitude of the commands increases incrementally. It is harder for the individual to disobey given commands, despite being aware of the detrimental consequences it has on others. At the end of the experiment, the “teacher”, who delivered the painful shocks on the “learner”, was questioned as to why he continued to hurt the “learner”. The teacher shifted the blame to the experimenter, arguing that he was doing what he was told. This suggests that the teacher has distanced himself from his actions and the pain he thought he was inflicting. By avoiding the responsibility of his actions, he is justifying that he is not in the wrong. The Milgram experiment was originally developed to explain the defense of Nazi officers, who claimed they were just “following orders”, to understand what was happening in their head. In “How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out In the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, a more in depth study by Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist, reveals that brain activity is hindered when people are given orders. They feel more distanced from their actions and less responsibility. If this is a basic human function, it is likely the majority of people have the potential to hurt others under the orders to. However, in the cases of atrocities like the Holocaust, this is not the only factor influencing the decisions of people under orders. The prevalence of an “Us vs. Them” advertised by the Nazi party, had aided Nazi officers into believing that they were in the right. The Jewish community was dehumanized to the extent where it “justified” their execution to the Nazi supporters. Another aspect of the Milgram experiment was the presence of non-conformers. The non-conformer would refuse to comply with the orders of the experimenter after they realized the pain the “learner” was going through. This highlights the importance of non-compliers in unjust governments/societies because this mindset eventually leads to a solution, whether violent or peaceful. However, in accordance with the results of the Milgram experiment, people are less likely to be non-conformers, as most people obey the orders given by the experimenter. Attempting to create a society where we encourage people who disobey immoral/unethical government officials would, in theory, prevent atrocities like the Holocaust from taking place and contribute to a more peaceful society. This could prove to be problematic, however, as people have different morals and beliefs on what is ethical. On top of this, there will always be consequences in disobeying authority figures. It is unlikely that people will want to undergo such consequences in the face of injustice. In the case of the Holocaust, there were many who knew not to disobey Nazi authority for the sake of their safety. It benefitted the non-Jewish people to let the Holocaust take its course as their safety was preserved.

I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others under the right conditions, shown through the Milgram experiment, however, I also believe that the Milgram experiment only explains ordinary people’s willingness to participate in active violence to a certain extent. I think this is because of missing factors that could also cause people to be obedient under an authority figure such as fear or bribery of some sort. Also, another reason to commit atrocities other than being obedient to an authority would be the feeling of “power” a person has knowing that they can determine another person’s fate.

In Milgram’s experiment, many people went through with the experiment, choosing to go all the way to 450 volts. Shown in the documentary, there were many who were hesitant to do so, but others also went through with the experiment “gleefully.” For those who were hesitant, they probably had a weaker stance on their own morals and were unsure where they stood, making them more susceptible to being forced to commit atrocities with obedience. Alongside this, according to the Obedience Theory, people with a weaker mentality or who are unsure about what to do in a situation tend to listen to those who are more “charismatic,” “credible,” and/or confident. They are often under the impression that “this person knows what they’re doing” even if it isn’t exactly correct.

However, also shown in the experiment, people are willing to commit atrocities as long as the responsibility isn’t placed on them, and rather on the authority figures. In Cari Romm’s article, she calls this “reduced responsibility.” This idea of reduced responsibility is shown in the Nuremberg trials following the Holocaust when Adolf Eichmann tries to defend himself by saying he was “following orders.” In this sense, perpetrators somehow feel as though they are excused from their actions because they didn’t intentionally commit the actions, and they ignore the idea of impact over intent because in the end, millions of innocent people still died.

Another aspect I find interesting about obedience to authority is the emotional disconnect between the perpetrator and the victim. Humans are social creatures and, therefore, create connections through bonding and getting to know each other personally. Through these connections, humans are better able to discern how the people they know react to and feel about things through empathy since it’s easier for many to do so with people they know rather than people they don’t. Through this reasoning, it’s less difficult for people to inflict pain onto others they don’t know, which in the case of the Holocaust the perpetrators most likely had no connections to the victims, rather people they do know because they don’t fully comprehend the victims’ feelings on a personal level. This is even seen in today’s society when people talk badly about others without knowing their story or their reasoning.

For the factors I think are missing from the Milgram experiment, I believe they are just as important as the factors shown in the documentary. Starting with fear as a factor of obedience, this is shown in the Holocaust where any person who would aid Jewish people would receive the death penalty, whether they were a citizen or a soldier. Of course, not many are willing to risk their life to help others, since many people are naturally inclined to look after themselves. Although they did not outwardly or directly commit atrocities during the Holocaust, they were still listening in obedience to an authority figure due to the fear of death and/or punishment.

Another factor that I believe is missing from the Milgram experiment is the “higher power” that people experience when being able to inflict harm on others. Though this depends on the circumstances, people are more willing to inflict pain on others when in a situation where they are also subjected to an authority figure or are told to carry on a specific task or role. In the case of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the guards quickly became tyrannical due to the realization of the power they held with no repercussions. Being able to tell people what to do gives the person in power the impression that they are free to do whatever they please since there is no higher authority figure to give them orders or punishment. In the Holocaust, due to being subjected to a higher authority figure, but also because of fear, the perpetrators felt “helpless” in that sense and most likely wanted to take out this feeling on the victims in concentration camps in order to feel as though they still have some sort of power.

I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. The majority of people are susceptible to authority figures, whether we consciously decide we need to follow their directions or not. Despite this, I do think that people in higher positions of power are less likely to be the perpetrators and rather than authority figures issuing the orders, as they would have fewer higher-ups. The Milgram experiment suggests that physical distance can make it easier to ignore emotional distance. In the experiment, even though the “teacher” could hear the apparent distress of the “learner”, their physical proximity to the experimenter, the authority figure, took precedence. The “teachers” ignored whatever their personal opinions were in favor of being obedient to the perceived authority. Based on How the Nazi’s Defence of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, it is likely that this ability to ignore emotional proximity comes from a decreased feeling of responsibility. Additionally, it was shown that when receiving directions from a higher-up, “ brain activity in response to this tone is indeed dampened when being coerced” (Barajas). This further explains why people are able to ignore emotional distance because if they are literally thinking less, it would likely be harder to maintain their own thoughts and opinions when being constantly bombarded with contrasting views.

While the Milgram experiment seems to be a good representation of how an ordinary person may react in an ordinary coercion scenario, I don’t think it’s an entirely accurate representation of how the same set of people would react to violence, mass atrocities, or genocide. In one of these more extreme cases, while the emotional proximity to the victims would likely be reduced, the physical proximity may be heightened, which may change the way people choose to carry out orders. Yes, people would likely still use less of their brain, and obediently carry out orders, I think there is still a possibility that people would feel a heightened responsibility for the pain they are causing when they are a direct witness. They may not feel this responsibility at the moment when they are just doing what they are told, but in the aftermath, the perpetrator may actually reflect on their actions rather than just dismissing them as the decision of a higher-up. (Obviously, this doesn’t apply to sometimes high enough in rank that they are not the ones actually hurting the victims, in which case, I do think Milgram is a rather accurate representation.) Other than a blind willingness to obey perceived authority, I think the most influential factor in people's ability to carry out harm is based on bias and stereotypes. If a perpetrator truly believes that whoever they are targeting is bad and deserves what is coming, it may be easier to follow through. Yes, this is a situation in which moral dissonance comes into play, but nonetheless, perpetrators have a very easy way to justify their actions: they supposedly did something bad, so I can do something bad. Even in the case where the target is innocent, as long as the perpetrator thinks they’re guilty, they have an easy way out of any sort of remorse.

I believe that the main factor that led “teachers” to disobey experimenters in the Milgram experiment is the fact that they met the “learner” to whom they would be causing harm. Knowing the victim's name and face arguably humanizes them. Without this humanization, it likely would not have been such a challenge to continue causing harm. I think this is especially applicable in genocide/mass atrocities. In such cases, the perpetrator often doesn’t directly know who their victims are, making it easier for them to separate their humanity from whatever their supposed sins are, and therefore easier to cause harm.

I don’t think it's possible to train people to disobey an unethical authority figure. If people truly believe an authority has some sort of power, it will be hard for them to recognize faults in their leadership, especially if the majority also believes this. Even if an individual has their own opinions, defying an authority figure, even an unethical one would likely force them into the ‘ outgroup’, a position most people subconsciously want to avoid. Additionally, if people were trained to disobey unethical authority figures, then the authority technically wouldn’t exist. Yes technically, they are a leader, but if everyone is conditioned to ignore their words, do they have any form of power and influence?

After watching the video on the Milgrim experiment I do think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence but that this is heavily dependent on cognitive dissonance and sense of self. The stronger one's own view of themselves is as “good” the less likely they are to perform an act of violence as this would greatly contrast with their self image and conflict with their morality. The Milgram experiment suggests that humans are extremely susceptible to figures of authority. For example Nazi commanders and higher ups justified their cruelty by blaming their actions on “just following orders” as stated in the article titled How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind. Perpetrators feel a sense of disconnect when their actions are based on the orders of others, even if they are the ones carrying out these actions. Our willingness as humans to inflict pain on others has a lot to do with our compliant and complacent behavior. Even if an authority figure isn’t directly communicating with a subject, it is human nature to obey whoever they perceive to be incharge. This experiment explains a possible motive as to why authoritative governments are also able to obtain large followings, such as the Nazi regime. Our desire to want to be a part of a group and not be the odd one out (mob mentality) plays into the obedience theory. The more people following a leader even if that leader is corrupt will make others more susceptible to joining due to fear of being socially (or physically) persecuted.

Milgram’s experiment does help to explain ordinary people’s activity participation in violence but other factors like propaganda, fear, coercion, and moral desensitization also play a huge role. The Nazi’s for example instilled propaganda in their citizens, desensitized them to certain forms of violence against Jewish people, and made many fearful for their lives. Using these tactics the Nazi government was able to get people to blindly follow and disregard all other aspects of what they were doing. Without these contributing factors many people would not have become an accessory to genocide and destruction.

Some important factors that led some “teachers” to disobey the experimenter's orders was possibly moral conviction and a strong sense of self. Usually those who are more willing to go against the norm will have disobeyed the order to continue to shock the “learner”. Attempting to create a society that values and encourages traits of those who will disobey unethical authority figures would be very difficult. People desire the majority over anything, individuality can be very difficult to accept in today's society. It would be nice for everyone to feel comfortable questioning authority without feeling ostracized, but I do believe that there is some danger that comes with this. If everyone is rebelling and questioning authority, how do you create unity, especially within a country? Everyone's opinions on who they believe is an unethical leader are different, there is no one person that everyone will fully support and we can see this issue occurring in modern day US history with the election.

In the article “How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind,” it is explained that when people act under orders of others, they perceive a greater distance from the outcomes they caused, experience less agency, and feel less responsible. Being ordered to harm people makes it easier for people to do so without feeling the moral consequences or by feeling reduced moral consequences. There is cognitive dissonance between the thoughts of “I am a good person who does not hurt others” and “I just harmed another person.” However, the fact that the teacher in the Milgram experiment was ordered to harm the other person, helps to lower this dissonance. The participant feels a difference in being the one who actively came up with the idea to harm someone compared to following the instruction of another to harm someone. This way, the violent idea did not begin in their own brain. I believe this does help to explain people’s participation in mass atrocities, but I also believe there are many other factors.

Besides a blind following of authority and instructions, I think there is much more that contributes to people’s willingness to inflict pain on others. A lot of it relates to what we have talked about in class. The Nazi regime proliferated an “us” vs. “them” mindset. This is in part due to the chemical oxytocin- which promotes ingroup favoritism, while making it easier to be cruel to an outgroup member. Jews and other targeted groups were seen as completely other. They were called names, which we learned makes it easier to dehumanize someone and harm them.

In the Milgram experiment, the teacher would often ask questions such as, “Are you sure I should continue?” The experimenter would respond with some variation of, “continue please” or “the experiment requires that you go on.” And so, the teacher would often continue harming the learner. This raises the question of why the teacher trusted and followed the word of the experimenter. It likely comes down to a power imbalance. The teacher assumed that since the experimenter had more power in this situation, they knew what they were doing. The teacher also could have felt like standing up to the experimenter was disobeying the authority and overstepping their boundaries as someone lower in the social hierarchy. However, there were some teachers who disobeyed the experimenter's instructions. I believe that those who disobeyed the experimenters likely had a strong self concept and sense of self. A strong sense of self helped the teachers listen to their own feelings and to what they were hearing from the learner in the other room, instead of assuming they were wrong or overreacting and that the experimenter had to be correct because they had more power in the situation. I believe it would be beneficial to build a society that values challenging unethical authority figures. However I feel there must be an emphasis on the difference between challenging unethical authority figures and challenging all authority figures, especially just for the sake of disruption. If we build a society that values the challenging of all authority figures, it would be hard to organize society and get anything done.

The Milgram experiment has revealed the true human nature, in which it suggests how anyone is able to become the perpetrator of inflicting pain on others. The experiment itself is set in a very common establishment, and even when there is no sense of fear in a person's demeanor, the experiment concludes that 50 percent of the people were willing to cause violence. Given that there was persistence of rules “forced” (rules the person chose to listen to, the experimenter did not explicitly have control over the teacher) upon the teacher, the pressure to follow them, even being conscious of their actions, is incredibly great. The human nature of satisfaction, especially through the validation of other humans is incredibly normal, and conducts many discoveries through inquisition and brainstorming. However, the potential of feeling validated by a deemed higher being is so great, and this experiment proves the exact same. The notion that it is not our problem that someone else is failing is also a big theme that is picked up through the experiment. Once people know things can be done without feeling remorse, such as the experimenter insisting that the other person was not being harmed, or the fate of the others was the responsibility of the university, people see themselves as part of the bigger picture.

In addition, the Milgram experiment does in fact explain the reason why ordinary people commit heinous crimes. Mirroring the experiment to real life, people who were the catalysts of wars, did not personally attack innocent people, but used their influences to dictate if violence was going to be inflicted to others. A great example is the U.S soldiers during the Vietnam War, in which U.S. soldiers were driven with the fact that they were being controlled by America, the land of free and peace. Many soldiers used this ideology, and also mixed with the influence of their corrupt leaders to inflict great war crimes on innocent Vietnamese people. The willingness of this is also explained by the lack of knowledge on the things that they are attacking. Coming back to America, they were only able to realize their actions, when faced with the separation of bigger authoritative protection. The public, having only social power, all attacked the system, protesting the rights of these veterans. Slowly after years, veterans of the Vietnamese War started to speak up, condone the violence that happened to the victims of this war. This phenomenon is also incredibly widespread in genocide, where the validation of higher ups causes moral dissonance among the soldiers fighting for cultural cleansing.

By having a leader, people are more willing to create pain, because if someone is also as influential and wise as their leader approves of something, it is immediately correct. Even when people doubt their leaders, with pressure from within and the fear of being outcasted, many force themselves to see the pros of their situation, and force themselves to become against their own morality. The continuity suggests how this is woven into history, in all types of degrees and human nature continues its cycle.

Similar to the cognitive dissonance theory, everyone wants to believe that they are a good person so when we learn about these psychological factors that make people do horrible things or things that do not align with who they are we like to think so highly of ourselves that we would never be like them. However in actuality most everyone in certain situations will do horrible things because of the way our brains work. It is a horrible thing to think about because everyone wants to believe that when it comes down to it, they would be the outlier but there can only be so many outliers. The Milgram experiment suggests that humans' desire to not be an outcast can force them into submission of a seen authority figure. Because the authority figure is seen as a leader humans will fear the potential exclusion from the group that the authority figure is a leader of and will obey them.

This innate desire to be a part of a group because of the safety that it provides is a factor that can impact someone’s ability to harm another person and it stretches further than just when there is an authority figure present. People will act in a violent manner in a group because they might fear the violence of the masses being turned on them if they stand out or they get sweeped up in the masses, becoming a hive mind unintentionally. Similarly a large factor of people committing violence to others is the rate of escalation. If someone came up to you and gave you a gun and told you to shoot someone, chances are you won’t because you have a moral conscience. However if someone gave you a gun and then asked you to go to a protest of a cause you somewhat believe in you might go, and at that protest if on of the opposition gets slightly injured and the people around you see it as a victory, then you go to another rally and the same thing happens, maybe you're also a little happy because the people around you were and no one really got hurt, but at the third the fighting escalates and someone tries to attack you it is much easier to pull the trigger.

Although there are many pieces of human psychology that can affect humans ability to harm others, we must keep in mind that those are solely factors. Just because psychology can explain how people commit atrocities doesn’t mean we are all doomed to do horrible things to others if, as the Milgram experiments suggest, if an authority figure tells you to. You still have free will and can choose to disobey, can choose to not be a part of the hivemind, or any of these other psychological factors determine how you will be forever.

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, even if they do not want to do it. As seen in the Milgram experiments, the perpetrators in this scenario were the “teachers,” the ones who volunteered to participate in the experiments. They understood that they would have to shock the “learners” on the other side, but they didn’t believe that they would become so injured during the experiement. As the voltage grows, the “learners” start pleading for them to stop, that they have a heart condition. They do not, as we know, because the “learners” were actors rather than real people, and they were not being shocked at all. The participants chosen for the Milgram experiments varied, meaning that all of these participants were willing to become a perpetrator of violence, which for this is shocking the actors. In the article How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Others” Plays Out in the Mind by Joshua Barajas, he notes that during Haggard’s experiments, which involved actual shocks, Haggard said that “when people act ‘under orders,’ they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves.” This can lead to the conclusion that the “experimenters” in the Milgram experiments were causing the participants to lose their agency as the experiment went on. They all became perpetrators, whether they meant it or not, and this shows that anyone can be a perpetrator when in the right circumstances.

From the Milgram experiments, we also learn about how certain aspects of human behavior make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others. When we were learning about obedience theory, we were told that we have been taught to obey authority, more specifiically from a young age, which leads us to internalize the concept that we need to follow the rules, whether the authority figure is present or not. The Milgram experiments only reassure this theory because even though an authority figure was present, a majority of the participants continued to give the shocks, even those who tried to protest against continuing to give them. Another aspect that the Milgram experiments suggest about the aspects of human behavior is that people will choose to not forsake the concept of obeying authority. This is because the “teachers” could just claim that they were not personally responsible for any harm that was caused during these experiments. One of the experiments even showed the “experimenter” saying that Yale themselves would be the ones who take the fall for the damages, not the “teacher.” This affirmation, this lie, changes the mindset of the “teachers” to make them believe that everything was going to be okay, that they would not be going to prison or anything of the sort. Because of this, we are more likely to proceed with the shocks, willingly inflicting pain on the “learners” without any care for the consequences of their actions anymore. Overall, the Milgram experiments place on full display the idea that when we are stressed, we will ask an authority figure for help, and if they wish for us to continue, then we will continue.

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against another. Human’s desperately crave, even if for a moment, a chance to portray a certain level of dominance. This feeling may be unconscious, but each of us have our own events in life, like being bullied or robbed, that made us feel inferior. When given the opportunity to blame someone for the actions that a person takes to hurt another, humans will use this as a way to let out desires and atone for being so weak in the past. In “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” by Maria Korrinkova, one quote, “When the “superintendent” and “warden” overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are” illustrates another point for why humans are capable of such horrific actions. If we are not to blame- because being called out for a bad action will invoke humiliation- then doing everything in our power to hurt another person seems okay. Even in a position of authority, if there is someone on a higher level, they will receive the brunt of the opposition's critics while we continue to do whatever we want. The reason for this, maybe frustration, anger, or fear of being violated ourselves. At the end of the day we’ll continue these acts until called out.

The Milgram experiment explains how ordinary people participate in mass atrocities because we easily conform to minimizing the impact we have on others. The best example of this is dehumanization. When someone is dehumanized, we start to create unrealistic expectations for them, like how the teachers in the Milgram experiment continued to give high voltage shocks and assumed that the learner was still willing to go on. Other factors contributing to people's willingness to inflict pain on others can be having a strong group leader, like Adolf Hitler, or the normalization of violence within a person’s community.

Not every situation has the teacher in the Milgram experiment going along with what the scientist says. Sometimes, the teacher has a strong sense of self and knows that they are in charge of what they are doing. This means that they can distinguish between what they are doing versus what they are being told to do, therefore making them more likely to not follow through with what is being told of them. They do not see the scientist as an authority figure, and they see the learner for what they are, someone being hurt for the pleasure of others. On a broader scale, I think societies can teach people how to defend themselves against unruly authority figures. The key is to educate people on how to check themselves and the power another has. Did they earn the position they are in? Are they purposely hurting others for self profit? Discouraging personal gain and promoting caring about others' well -being, morals, empathy, and courage to speak out against the majority is the key to creating less teachers who finish the experiment and more teachers who stand up for the learner.

I believe the Milgram experiment shows some factors that influence people to participate in violence. I propose three main factors that may explain why the ‘teachers’ kept shocking the ‘learners’: physical and emotional separation between the person and the victim, a perceived punishment for disobedience or reward for obedience, and the placement of responsibility. These factors can also be used to explain why atrocities happen since many of them include these factors, showing how significant and prevalent they are. For example, the Nazis were not Jewish, they were paid or rewarded for their service, and many of them claimed that they were “following orders”. These factors work together to ‘incentivize’ violence.

It is easy for people to harm others who are unfamiliar to them, especially if they are considered enemies by other people. It is easy for people to create stereotypes of others, to accuse them of things they haven’t done, or to believe false statements about them. It is important for us to know the view of the other party because it allows us to do away with those stereotypes and accusations and understand how other people truly affect us. However, the Milgram experiments show that even this isn’t enough. Even when the ‘teachers’ knew that the ‘learners’ were in audible pain and wanted to leave, many of them continued. This brings empathy into question, but the experiments show that even empathy isn’t enough to stop them.

I believe that the ‘teachers’ in the experiments felt that they would be punished if they didn’t comply with the orders of the ‘experimenter’. Many of the ‘teachers’ continued to shock the ‘learners’ even after they said they wanted to leave because of the pressure put on them by the ‘experimenter’. Later interpretations of Milgram’s work explain that “those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking” (Carl Romm, 2015), showing that people’s ability to resist persuasion, or possibly the pressure of a perceived punishment, also affects their willingness to continue.

In the article How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, people lose their sense of agency, or their personal responsibility for their actions, when they are following orders. This is also a factor of the ‘teachers’ actions in the Milgram experiment; the ‘teacher’ felt that the ‘experimenter’ was really the one that was hurting the ‘learner’, and that they were simply carrying out the ‘experimenter’s orders because of how disillusioned they were from their actions.

Ultimately, these factors contribute to a conflict that everyone faces. Many people don’t want to harm others because they view themselves as ‘good’, but they become conflicted when they do something or are told to do something ‘bad’. People feel ‘good’ in the sense that they are following authority, but they also feel ‘bad’ because they are doing ‘bad’ actions. The factors try to explain why people choose to do ‘bad’ actions even when they want to be ‘good’. Ultimately, I believe that people who are able to show more empathy to the harmed, who are able to resist persuasion, and who can understand their actions can stand up to authority.