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:

Compliance towards authority is not the sole reason that genocides occur. There are a multitude of factors that impact them, and cause these strings of violence. However, authority still has a large impact on individuals. As discussed in the article “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” Joshua Bajaras mentions how Adolf Eichmann, a Holocaust organizer and low level officer, was “just following orders.” While some may view this as some sort of explanation and justification, there are many other systematic and psychological factors that impact their decision making. Despite being someone in a lower position, Adolf Eichmann still went to great extents to participate in the Holocaust. Ones that mere citizens would not go to. For example, he actively participated in teh Wansee conference, one that heavily encouraged the continuation of the genocide. It is clear that his actions were not done out of fear of obedience, when he went to such great lengths. There are still many psychological matters that we also must take into consideration. When discussing the Stanford Prison Life Experiment, they tested out the difference in people reaching out with Prison versus without prison. They noticed that the initial group had “significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.” This impacts people's willingness to be cruel and violent towards others. Even if the discrimination against Jewish people was not something many of the officers necessarily agreed with, their participation in this was a result of possible psychological factors. We also have to consider things such as the environment people grew up in. Trauma is an extremely impactful thing that can follow people around for the rest of their lives. Grouping up surrounded by things such as violence, hate, and strict protocols can result in individuals mirroring these exact things later on.

People are always everchanging, meaning the way they treat others is also as well. I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. There are still many nuances involved in this. For example, we must consider the situation one person may be in. Sometimes violence is used as a strategy of self defense, and the only option available. Sometimes it is performed professionally, such as activities like boxing. Some things are accidents or playful, like lightly hitting someone when laughing, or accidently smacking someone in the face. At the same time, some people are to some extent forced. For example, in South Korea it is required by the law for men to join the military for a period of time. A lot of the time there is no strong backbone on the coercion of violence. There are still many sectors of the military you can join that don’t involve violence. I believe that it is important to view everything from a bird's eye perspective. To some extent, violence inevitable. Being a part of violence does not automatically make someone a bad or violent person. It is sort of unempathetic to determine your opinion on limited information. That is something you wouldn't want others to do to you. You can never fully understand someone's situation or reason for violence until you're in the same position. However, it is important to say that these things are not always applicable. For example, towards mass genocides or other violent crimes such as murder. The question really is what determines actions as too cruel or inhumane to be justified? That is for individuals to decide.

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator. Although I may also believe that not everyone does such things with bad intentions, it stands to reason that we are very susceptible to authority and conformity. We, as humans, don’t like to be uncomfortable -- whether it is a physical stressor, such as high humidity on a Summer day, or moral dissonance that we are forced to stomach, we act in the way that resolves this conflict the easiest and quickest. So often in our lives we ignore our own thoughts or beliefs for the sake of preserving a group’s good favor towards us, or to ignore the part we have played in, say, hurting someone else. This susceptibility, this ease in which we can cast aside our sense of selves for comfortability, is how we become so capable of harming our fellow human beings. The Milgram experiment illuminates a great example of this. When the teacher was faced with the shocks he was told to inflict upon another man, particularly the other’s distress as a result of them, he was, understated-ly, uncomfortable. He knew, as many of us are brought up, that harming another is morally wrong, that it is an exertion of power and control that has no place between two beings of the same constitution and worth. But the discomfort of his actions, the reality that it was HIM inflicting this pain, overshadowed his morals. He knew he was doing something wrong, and he knew that he didn’t like this, and it is in a human trend that he turned to the authority in the room with him. The teacher subconsciously placed the responsibility upon the experimenter, told himself that he was being forced to complete this action, even as the other exerted no violence or verbal threat in response to the hesitance. The experimenter told him to continue, and the teacher did, because it is easier to continue a bad habit and blame his circumstances, than it is to stop, and acknowledge what he has done, and reconcile with those consequences. But this isn’t to say that this makes a bad person -- it is, simply, inarguably, human nature. This experiment supports the idea that everyone is capable of it, but so too does it argue that our evil actions do not inherently make us evil. Though we cannot excuse that which we do for the sake of the “oh, I couldn’t help it” mentality, it does evolve this duality of man: the capability of violence, and the implications of it on one’s character. If you don’t not CHOOSE to do something, are you still held responsible for the action? I would argue that yes, you are -- but that the action is not a clear-cut purview into one’s “goodness,” rather simply a testament to the workings of the human mind.

Joshua Barajas delves into a very similar concept in his article “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind.” His work references a number of scientific findings, but a general consensus that is supported by the chemicals of the brain, and the results reported in experiments such as that of Milgram’s, is that “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas 2). It evolves this understanding that people, when in moments of duress, turn themselves to the authoritarian figure that is either encouraging, or excusing, the heinous action that is being done. It’s in human nature that we subjugate ourselves to the regime that has been set in any given circumstance, such as that in a school setting, or simply out in public. We release a majority of our agency, or so we believe, to the rules that are set for us, even those understood silently, or simply the expectations of the leader we recognize. It’s in this way that we feel we have no choice but to adhere to the task that we are instructed with, such as the Milgram teacher administering the shocks, and yet also in this way, we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves. We write them off as what was asked for, and, by extension, not a problem in regards to our morals or beliefs. It is how we grapple with the atrocities or even just mistakes that we have allowed to happen, so that we can retain that same need for “comfort.”

While everyone is very different, I think we all have the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. What sets us apart, is that we all have varying levels of tolerance. The Milgram experiments provide us with the evidence that when faced with the choice between obedience or personal opinion, we often follow what we are told. However, I do not think that the experiments are reflective of the general public’s actions. It's important to take note that all of the participants were middle aged white men. They also signed up to take part in this expierment, so they have some sort of drive to want to test and be tested. Furthermore, at that time, these participants were all working, and probably were used to obeying rules and orders. However, if this test were to be run on various random people, I think there would be a difference in when or even whether or not people would obey. This being said, I do think we all have the potential to inflict violence on others. This is because anger, fear, confusion and sadness are often the drivers of violence, and they are emotions felt strongly by everyone. Someone’s willingness to cause pain can be influenced by many different factors. Past experiences with receiving or seeing violence, could make a person less or more likely to then cause pain for others. A lack of care for anyone, or feelings of numbness may make a person perfectly okay with inflicting pain on others, and not feel any sort of remorse or regret. In the Milgram experiment, the difference between those who continued to cause pain, or those who argued against it, might have their own moral compass telling them what to do. I think the system of obedience that America teaches, however, can take control over that compass and cause someone to continue inflicting pain because they feel a need to ‘follow the rules’ and ‘obey authority’.

Attempting to create societies where disobedience is taught is in effect, the same as a society teaching obedience. While it is important to teach values like self-expression, independent thought, and self-advocacy from an early age, teaching disobedience can become dangerous. This is because there will be no order or unity among a society filled with disobedience. Some aspects of obedience are important. It is important we obey traffic laws, it is important we obey safe medical practice, it is important we obey basic social etiqutte (in iteself an oxymoron). There also are important aspects of disobedience. Learning to say no, for example, is vital for a child, and equally important to reteach to teenagers, and young adults. It is also important for people to be able to stand up for themselves and others, even when it means going against the norm and disobeying someone or something. Attempting to create a society that values disobedience seems contradictory to me, because would it teach it that it is better to be disobedient than obedient? And isn’t that just another way of teaching obedience? In the article Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, by Cari Romm, Matthew Hollander, a sociology Ph.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin states this idea perfectly; “The ability to disobey toxic orders, Hollander said, is a skill that can be taught like any other—all a person needs to learn is what to say and how to say it”.

I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Even with strong morals and beliefs, people can be easily manipulated by outside factors in order to bring the violence. This was shown in the Milgram experiment where people in power were able to convince others to inflict pain on another person. The experiment showed to what extent humans will go to in order to obey orders. Human behavior is extremely intricate, with the idea that people will betray their morals and values just to follow the rules. An example is seen in the original Milgram experiment shown in class, where the teacher knew what he was doing was wrong, and that he believed the learner was already harmed, but he still followed through on the shocks when asked. The experiments demonstrated that humans' needs to follow instruction are greater than their needs to do good. It also goes along with a person's ease into trust. Again in the Milgram experiment, the teacher blindly followed the instructor's words, even when he had doubts. I believe that this is a deep dive into questioning the real morals of people, as said in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, “Milgram’s early research has come to serve as a kind of all-purpose lightning rod for discussions about the human heart of darkness.”

I think experiments such as Milgrams explain a great amount about ordinary people's active participation in violence, because they show how easy it is for people to follow suit. They took regular people and put them into a situation where they had to choose between sticking to their morals, or following authority, and they chose it. I think following orders has been the easy way out for people, because it is definitely harder to stand up for yourself and other people than it is to stand with the crowd. Other factors that could come into play would be a person's beliefs that are similar to the movement. Some people, sadly, believe that certain groups are lower than others, and think that it is right for them to be punished, or harmed. This was shown in the Holocaust, where it was both the influence of Hitler, and the fact that some people genuinely agreed with him. Another factor could be peer pressure, not by authority, but by other people who are involved.

Some important factors that could have affected the teachers ability to disobey the instructors commands are their past, their experiences, and who they are as a person. For instance, if there were a person who themselves or a family member had been hurt before, and they had to hear them in pain, that could be an immediate no for them, because they know what it's like. Similarly, if someone is a doctor, they would most likely understand the gravity of the situation. These are rare chances, but like these scenarios would most likely be ways to disobey certain orders. Creating a society where many people disobey unethical authority figures would be difficult, because as we can see, the majority of the people in the study obeyed, and it explains how easy it is for people to give in to authority figures' orders. It would also be dangerous, because it could bring about things like riots, mobs, and violence if a large group of people went against someone or something.

According to “Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” by Cari Romm “ordinary people, under the direction of an authority figure, would obey just about any order they were given, even to torture.” Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others but that doesn’t classify them as a bad person. In Milgram's experiment, the majority of “teachers” continued to administer shocks to the “learner” until instructed to stop. Although the majority of people complied with the ‘experimenter's’ commands, some disobeyed them and decided to stop the experiment early. I don’t think this makes them better people compared to the people who finished the experiment, it just emphasizes their strong ethical principles and unwillingness to keep going in an unethical situation. Everyone had the power to stop the experiment and walk away whenever they wanted but only some were strong enough to do so. At the end of the experiment, all of the ‘teachers’ were asked why they kept shocking the learner, and what motivated them to do so. When watching the experiment it was clear that the teacher was not comfortable with shocking the learner, they were frequently questioning the experimenter and asking to go check in on the learner. Despite their questionable actions, the people did not administer shocks with evil intentions, they never meant to hurt anyone but they were just being compliant with the rules. They felt as though they needed to obey their superior because the experimenter kept emphasizing the need to keep shocking the learner and complete the experiment. This shows how even though the majority of people decided to obey the order to continue torturing the learner they didn’t do it without doubt.

Milgram hypothesizes that “people’s behavior is determined largely by what’s happening around them. They’re not psychopaths, and they’re not hostile, and they’re not aggressive or deranged. They’re just people, like you and me”. This theory suggests that humans are more likely to obey an authoritative figure in situations like the Milgram experiment. Although the teachers have morals and are physically uncomfortable with shocking the learners, they continue to obey because they feel like they are forced to do this. The ‘teachers’ are being indirectly controlled by the superior figure. I think that the only way for the person to keep obeying the other is if they have some view that the other person is of higher power and is legitimate. They obey this authority figure because they believe that the authority figure will take responsibility for their horrible actions. They keep on going because they have this idea that it isn’t their fault for doing this bad thing, it is the fault of the experimenter because they put them in this situation. By just watching the experiment you might think that these ‘teachers’ are horrible awful people but, in reality, it wasn’t their personality that shaped the behavior but it was the situation they were put in. This theory proves true with other’s participation in violence and mass movements, they think they can just deflect the blame for their actions to their superiors.

I believe that most people, if not all, have the potential to become a perpetrator in certain environments that they might find themselves in. I believe this because people generally have a natural instinct to protect themselves, so when, for example, an authority figure with a lot of power tells someone to commit bad actions against other humans, the perpetrator might be driven by an instinct making him think that he may be severely punished or even killed if he does not follow orders. In these types of settings, the vast majority of people would go to extreme levels to keep themselves safe from any harm, despite causing a lot of harm to others. Even when someone is not in any danger of harm themselves, the authority figure being present in the same room could have enough influence on a person to continue causing harm to others, even if they feel morally guilty or regretful of their actions. This was seen in the Milgram experiment where one of the teachers was extremely worried about the learner when he first started complaining and demanding to be let out of the electric machine. Although the experimenter wanted to stop as early as around 190 volts and check up on the learner, he continued to electrocute the learner after constant insisting from the authority figure (experimenter). The teacher was able to go so far as to continuing the experiment and electrocuting the learner at 450 volts several times after he did not speak or grunt or give any sign of being awake for a long time. One of the ways I believe the “teacher” thought he had to continue with the experiment is because the experimenter insisted so much to continue that he was able to convince the teacher that he had no other option but to continue, despite the fact that he had an actual choice to leave despite the experimenter’s objections. Lastly, I believe the teacher’s actions were further fueled when he constantly asked the experimenter if he would have any responsibility on the learner and if anything happens to him, which the experimenter reassured him that he would have no responsibility and would only be placed on the experimenter if anything were to happen. After this, although feeling worried and guilty at times, the teacher went on to the maximum level of electricity. The Milgrem experiment helps show how almost anyone is able to commit harmful actions towards another human in certain circumstances. Depending on the circumstances, the experiment showed higher levels of people going to the maximum level if, for example, the learner is in another room, if the experimenter is present in the room with the teacher, and if two experimenters are at conflict for the potential consequences the electrocution could cause. Due to these circumstances, if a person is in the perfect setting where they are very pressured to do as they are told, the majority of people would commit harm to others, even if they don’t want to and feel guilt for doing it.

I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator because we as humans are so easily manipulated into doing the wrong thing. In the Milgram experiment, the man/teacher who continues to shock the learner has his own concerns about the learner’s conditions (such as his heart and him potentially being dead) throughout, proving that the teacher is not a bad guy but that he is being manipulated by the experimenter to avoid the mans obvious pain. Experiments like Milgram's do explain, not justify, people's active participation in violence and mass atrocities because it shows that most human beings care more about acceptance than their own moral principle. Even when we know what we are doing is wrong, we often act against what we know is right if we feel we are alone in our feelings. Other than exploiting his authority, the experimenter makes the teacher feel conflicted by consistently assuring him that “ the shocks may be painful but they're not dangerous”. This shows the power of language and brainwashing and the affect it can have on people, leading them to participate in mass atrocities, violence, and even genocide. The experimenter eventually begins to call the teacher “ teacher”, rather than his name, which makes the teacher begin to refer to him as “ sir”. This shows how the experimenter is being put into a position of authority by the teacher, explaining his choice to continue with the experiment. Additionally, the experiment was advertised to be about “memory and learning” which would make the teacher in the experiment feel like the experiment was for the greater good, despite the torture being afflicted on the learner. In mass atrocities, such as the Holocaust, people were brainwashed into thinking the genocides were for the greater good, showing a connection between the teacher in the Milgram experiment and participants in mass atrocities. Cari Romm contributes to this idea in the article “Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments” when they state “In some ways, though, Milgram’s study is also—as promised—a study of memory, if not the one he pretended it was”(Romm 1). In this quote, Romm is addressing that obeying to those in positions of authority is a learned behavior, perhaps even genetic, thus the experiment is in fact a study of memory. All throughout history, people have been doing what they are told despite the further ramifications. Romm also addresses how history is keen on repeating itself, because this learned behavior will always be in play. Those who do not fall into patterns of obedience have strong personal responsibility. This is evident in the teacher who refuses to continue with the experiment, stating “ I refuse to take the responsibility”. The teacher who continued is not necessarily a person of worse moral standing than the one who refused, but is not as strong with his own self-concept, which is seen when he asks the experimenter “ you accept all responsibility?. The teacher who continued deflects the responsibility onto the experimenter because he is not as true to himself. In most mass atrocities, it's easy to make the perpetrator out to be an evil/bad person, but it becomes much more morally ambiguous when we psychoanalyze the behavior of their followers. It especially becomes challenging to discern when the effects of perpetrator, or even the follower, are unknown, such as the separation of the teacher and the learner. n conclusion, the Milgram experiment addresses our complex relationship with obedience and makes us question the inherent goodness of the human race. The one question I want to consider however is, if multiple teachers did this experiment in the same room, would the amount of people refusing to continue increase?

Based on the Milgram experiment, I can conclude that everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. In the experiment, the teacher was asked to shock the learner, an actor, if the learner got any questions wrong. Not surprisingly, over half of the teachers did what they were told to do and willingly harmed someone else just because they were told to by someone they thought had power over them. Although many showed some sort of discomfort in the situation, they still decided to harm the learner. This just proves that in times when there are people in power, most people are willing to do whatever they are told, even if it means harming the other person. However, this does not take into account the fact that the teacher could have known or somehow figured out the fact that this experiment was actually being conducted on them. According to Australian psychologist Gina Perry in the article, Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, there are so many problems with the Milgram experiment, ranging from participants knowing it was a hoax to experimenters going off script, that it is necessary to rethink the whole experiment. Therefore, the Milgram experiment does not actually explain ordinary people’s actions in times of violence, mass atrocities, genocide because it does not consider factors like the participant’s personal situation.

On the other hand, there were a couple participants that actively refused to continue on with the experiment. These participants seemed to be more confident and determined in their views, possibly contributing to the reason as to why they absolutely refused to injure the learner any further. People that have more self-confidence are more likely to stand up for themselves, even if there is someone with more power telling them the opposite of what they believe in. These participants could have also experienced firsthand what would happen if they didn’t do something about the situation, giving them more determination to put a stop to the experiment. I think it is important for society to teach people to not be a bystander in situations of violence. However, I know that it isn’t extremely possible for everyone to stand up for themselves with confidence in order to fight for their rights. Many are taught to keep silent since they were children to not be bothersome, especially in times when there is a central figure who everyone seems to obey. Additionally, oftentimes there are punishments for going against authority, leading to even less people standing up for themselves. Although I think a society would benefit with more people that disobey an unethical authority figure, I think it is not possible because society is taught to be silent since childhood. If social norms changed now and all of the younger generations were taught to be an upstander, it is more likely that there would be more up-standers in society years in the future. Still, there would be problems with society because if there are too many people going against central authority, it will cause instability. Ultimately, I believe that it is more realistic for society to find a balance between having too few and too many up standers.

As humans, we have all had the experience of making a mistake, but instead of taking responsibility, we instead attempt to shift the blame. As social animals, we do not enjoy feeling responsible, as it acknowledges that we have made a mistake, and instead often attempt to make excuses. The idea of cognitive dissonance at first seems obvious, however, it has some ramifications which explain some of history's worst moments. The Milgram experiment explores the idea of how we react when being ordered to hurt someone else intentionally, or possibly even kill them. The experiment's results were shocking, however, one of the most common themes we saw from the people who turned the voltage to maximum power, was that they did not take responsibility and instead blamed the scientists. During the Nuremberg trials following World War 2, similar remarks were often made by Nazi soldiers and generals, that they simply had no choice after being told to. Milgram's experiment seems to validate these claims, as over 60% of the people turned up the voltage to the maximum settings, which potentially could have been lethal. In Patrick Haggard's rendition of the experiment, he used actual shocks, and the results hardly changed. Hagggards experiment went further in-depth and was much more controlled, however, most people who were told to harm someone else did. By doing experiments on the brain, Haggard saw that when a person is being told orders, parts of their brain become dampened, leading to them being more receptive and not thinking out the implications that come with them. This leads back to primitive human tribe society, in which the humans who did not listen to the other humans who knew better, often ended up dead. Now, we have not rid of this trait, and if we ever feel unsure of our abilities, we are much more likely to blindly believe in other people. Still, humans can make choices, which is why I believe we all aren’t doomed to harm others after being ordered to. People who do blindly follow authority, are more likely to when they feel inadequacy with themselves, as they seek to be validated and part of a group. It is far less likely that someone content with their life, will harm other people due to someone else's orders, as it would cause too much cognitive dissonance and their brain wouldn't be as dampened since they are confident. However, societies such as pre-fascist Germany, who had been persecuted and stripped of all of their dignity after World War 1, are more likely to idolize leaders such as Hitler, who they believe can save them and know better. Once a charismatic leader has the trust and support of the public, they can enforce ideas of superiority to remove dissonance for those committing horrible acts, such as the idea of the “Master Race”. These ideas are perpetrated wherever violence is committed, as the creation of an “out-group” is yet again a tactic humans evolved during ancient caveman times. While these psychological ideas are true, they again do not define us, and the German generals still deserved their punishment. This idea is all the more powerful after remembering that a single dissenter, can make a massive difference in a mass movement.

I do not believe that everybody has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because much like how the man in the Milgram experiment who had refused to continue the shocks, people will not give in to the societal pressures that could be enforced in a situation similar to that in the experiment. What the Milgram experiment shows us is that although not everybody, but a majority of people will be able to follow through with being the perpetrator in a situation as shown in the experiment. All it takes is simply somebody to push you forward and egg you on. Without that person, it is less likely that one will be able to continue causing another’s pain while hearing their pain. Experiments much like Milgram’s can in fact explain the reasoning behind mass atrocities, violence, and genocide because people are hard-wired to listen to authority and are capable of disregarding their moral compass to obey that authority. This can be caused by a fear of authority and a fear that if they do not obey then they will be the one to be harmed, but also the safeguard of simply having no choice but to obey creates this cognitive dissonance where you look at yourself as the lucky one in the situation instead of the unlucky one, who is receiving the pain. Patrick Haggard also states, “People actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” This proves that people will shift the blame in order to feel better about themselves, relating back to that cognitive dissonance where people create a barrier between themselves and the truth. Creating this wall can allow a person to further continue in the violation of others since there seems to be little to no resentment or guilt that could possibly prevent them. This wall can just be physical like a literal wall, or maybe a person who is telling them to continue making them believe that they are not at fault but those who are “forcing” them to continue. Other factors that can come into play are who the person is that they are committing these acts towards, the setting, and possibly the type of pain that is associated with the punishment. It is even possible that some of these people enjoy inflicting pain on others, or enjoy the idea of having the power to control another person. Much like in the Stanford Prison experiment, where one of the students wondered how far could they really push that line before somebody tells them to “knock it off”. Some possible personality traits that could lead to the “teacher” to disobey the “experimenters” in this experiment are people who are more empathetic, confident in themselves, and independent enough to be able to not fall into peer pressure and decide when enough is enough. Yes there could be a way to promote and enforce independence in each individual but it may not be super effective in a larger society. This is because without somebody to lead and set somewhat of a standard chaos can just sprout and the society could collapse.

I think that, under certain circumstances, everyone has the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. Whether it’s for something they desire, like money or power, or due to an external force pressuring them into doing so, everyone is capable. The Milgram experiments suggest that it is easier to inflict pain on others when we are being pushed by authority. The authority’s demands allow the individual to deflect blame off of them, ultimately making them feel less sorry for their own violent actions. These experiments also suggest that the proximity of the authoritative figure to the individual affects their actions. For example, one “teacher” during the trial repeatedly tried to end the experiment and leave, but the “experimenter” insisting they had to sit back down and finish the experiment was more effective than the “learner’s” potential death. This is because of the difference in distance.

I think experiments like Milgram’s are just one example of ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass genocide, etc. There are many other reasons why people could partake in acts like these, such as natural evilness, psychological differences, and much more. There doesn’t always have to be a “teacher” present for this to happen. The experiments should have included another trial where the “teacher” was farther in physical distance from the “experimenter” to determine how effective the experiment was. I hypothesize that if the experimenter were in another room, the teacher would have less incentive to stay and continue with the experiment. I also believe that if the teacher could see the learner, rather than just hearing them, the teacher would have stopped the experiment early. Another possibility arises from the Stanford experiment, where regular participants are given the ability to punish prisoner actors like police officers. As Maria Korrinkova states in “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment”, “extreme institutions” are also the root cause of people inflicting pain on others. Therefore, I don’t believe that The Milgram experiments provide us with the only reason as to why regular people commit acts of violence.

Some of the most important factors/personality traits that led the “teachers” to disobey the “experimenters” was a strong sense of self. If you know internally that acts of violence don’t correspond with who you are, and you are firm in that belief, you are much less likely to continue on with hurting someone else. If this were the case, right when the teacher began to hear these cries, the teacher would have immediately gotten up and ended the experiment. For example, one teacher began laughing at the learner’s cries, even though he was convinced they were extremely hurt. Regardless of his instincts, he continued harming the learner when the experimenter demanded that he finish the experiment. I only see positives in creating societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. If anything, that person would be a true hero and a leader to the people around them who suffer from the Obedience Theory and, in some cases, the Mass Society Theory.

I think that everybody has the potential to become perpetrators, but to different extents. Some, likely those with a strong sense of self, will disobey authority and refuse to hurt others. This is because they are the most aware of their identity and have enough respect for themselves to not willingly go against their values. On the other hand, most people will know that hurting others is wrong, but still go through with it because they do not want to disobey authority and they believe that they are not responsible for these hurtful actions. The Milgram experiments suggest that there are additional factors (other than personal sense of self) that come into play. These factors include the physical and mental distance between the authority figure and the perpetrator, as well as between the perpetrator and the victim. When the perpetrator and victim are closer, either emotionally or physically, there is a higher chance that the perpetrator will sympathize with the victim and attempt to stop hurting them. When the authority figure and the perpetrator are closer emotionally or physically, then the perpetrator is more likely to commit the harmful actions because they do not want to disobey the orders of their superior to an even higher extent. Other than the blind following of authority, a reason why people are willing to inflict pain on others is because they believe that it is not their decision and they are not responsible for it. During the documentary, the “teacher” asked, “You [the professor] are responsible if the man dies?”, demonstrating that he would be willing to hurt another person if he believed that it wasn’t his fault. But, Matthew Hollander, a sociology PhD candidate, questioned Milgram’s experiment and argued that the results of the experiment didn’t demonstrate that people were just willing to hurt others, but rather that these people just simply didn’t stand up for themselves enough. In Romm’s 2015 article Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, Hollander argues, “people in both categories tried several different forms of protest—those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking.” Hollander is saying that the people who gave the 450 volt shock weren’t just blindly following authority and didn’t have a mind of their own, rather he is arguing that these people possibly did have high moral compasses but just didn’t stand up for themselves enough. This ties back into what I previously mentioned about having a strong sense of self. If one has this strong sense of self, then they are significantly less likely to do something that doesn’t agree with their values. If we teach people to value themselves, their identity, and their beliefs, then more people will be able to stand up to authority and refuse to harm others. This process can begin in schools. If young children are taught to be themselves and not be as pressured to “fit in” with other people, but instead to express themselves in the way that they choose and have their own individual opinions, then they will likely have a stronger sense of self, which will allow our society to be more kind to others.