learntoquestion ltq discussions

Some important factors that were seen with many of the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment that rebelled and disobeyed the ‘experimenter’ is the idea that they had rationality and stubbornness in what they believed was right. They had held responsibility and accountability for their actions, even when being told what to do by the ‘experimenter’. Those who willingly obeyed the experimenter, resulting with the Obedience Theory, would always justify their actions by saying that they were ‘being made to’ by the experimenter, that it was all for the experiment and therefore shouldn’t be held accountable for something so deadly. Seen with the guy in the documentary, who had to take a cigarette out of fear, he kept asking for reassurance that it was fine to keep going, and kept looking towards the ‘experimenter’ asking if it was really okay. “Haggard’s team found that brain activity in response to this tone is indeed dampened when being coerced [...] who explained they felt less responsible when they acted under orders” (Barajas 3). I think an issue is that some people almost have a sort of laziness in their minds, doing actions that are easier to follow than to go through all the effort of standing up for what may be the right thing to do. With that smoking guy, he had tried to stop multiple times but eventually gave in after the ‘experimenter’ egged him on. Sometimes it’s easier to just follow rules than to stand up and make a fuss over a problem.

This is also followed by the idea that it’s not them to be blamed because they were put in a bad spot, and that because of this, they say it’s because of the set of circumstances leading to this, but not themselves. Where it says that

“continued to its logical extreme, situationism ‘has an exonerating effect,’ he said. ‘In the minds of a lot of people, it tends to excuse the bad behavior … it’s not the person’s fault for doing the bad thing, it’s the situation they were put in.’ Milgram’s studies were famous because their implications were also devastating: If the Nazis were just following orders, then he had proved that anyone at all could be a Nazi. If the guards at Abu Ghraib were just following orders, then anyone was capable of torture.” I think this is what Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman had meant when he said the most frightening news brought about the Holocaust, is that the idea anybody could have done the same exact thing: the idea that because of the bad circumstances, we had to have done a terrible thing. We had to turn to violence, there was no other choice. I do believe that there could be other factors that weren’t put in whilst Milgram conducted his experiment. Many people who turn to doing such aggressive and destructive acts are usually motivated by something terrible happening in their past. This is an extreme example, but for Hitler, his past and backstory consists of many rejections, which could’ve left an everlasting impact on him now. His dream of being an artist was shattered when he tried to apply to art school and they denied him. His desire to marry the love of his life, a Jewish woman, was also a no. At the end, his hate for Jews would have increased to the point where he would try to eradicate the whole race.

I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because the fact that we can be easily submissive to simple directions even when hurting others, as shown in the Milgram Experiment, shows that it is easy to follow wrong. The Milgram studies provide insight into the aspect of human nature that can be the potential for individuals to become a perpetrator of violence. The investigations showed that normal people might cause others pain, when they were in the presence of an authority figure. This shows that the presence of authority and a planned experiment or environment, can have a big impact on moral decisions. This is shown when they called the man “teacher” which made him feel as if he had more power but didn’t know what to do when given instructions, even when it went against what he believed was right. The “teacher” chose to not ignore the orders to shock the ‘learner’ because he had a strong feeling of needing to obey what the instructor of the experiment told him. Although he felt empathy he constantly made sure that he was not going to be the one to blame for what he was doing, not taking responsibility for his actions. Individuals frequently explained away their behavior by saying they were simply carrying out orders, showing how psychological and social factors can take control over moral principles. This view is shown in Cari Romm's article, "Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments," which contradicts one's understanding of these results and challenges us to think about the deeper processes behind obedience and the potential for cruelty that exist inside each of us. It suggests that in order to really comprehend why regular people can become involved in acts of violence, we need to take into account the social environment overall, which includes historical and cultural aspects. Understanding these will help us be able to address the causes of aggressiveness better and prevent bad things from happening in the future.

The complexity of human behavior that results in violence, mass murder, and genocide is not fully taken into consideration. Group identity, dehumanization, and cultural standards are some of the key factors that influence the desire of individuals to injure others. For example, propaganda and the need to fit in with the group can persuade people to do things they might not do on a regular day to day basis. Romm's criticism of Milgram's research emphasizes that obedience to authority is just a single aspect of a bigger idea and highlights the need for a deeper comprehension of these dynamics. There is a more complex way of understanding of why regular people could commit violent crimes which develops when we take into account the balance of psychological, social, and environmental elements that ultimately influence how we act everyday. The environment that people live in has a big influence on how violent they tend to be. The role that fear, desperation, and social conformity play in driving people into violence isn't thoroughly talked about. People could feel pressured to behave against their moral ethics and values during a crisis, in order to support other people or to defend themselves.

Experiments like Milgram’s explains ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide to a certain extent. Milgrim’s experiment is accurate in how it portrays how ordinary people’s will and moral compass crumbles under the authority of a higher power. Society has engraved in our minds ever since we were little children to obey and not fall out of line, explaining how ordinary people always tend to surrender to and carry out the orders of an authority figure, even if they don’t want to. However, the experiment doesn’t consider external factors, like the situation one is in, and how that can play a role in one’s active participation in violence and atrocities. According to Cari Romm, “...situationism “has an exonerating effect,” he said. “In the minds of a lot of people, it tends to excuse the bad behavior … it’s not the person’s fault for doing the bad thing, it’s the situation they were put in” (Romm, 5). In her article, Romm explains that the situation of the Germans, being in a crisis after the loss of WW1, could explain their compliance to Hitler’s demands. Additionally, Milgrim’s experiment is limited and inaccurate in explaining the “ordinary” person’s participation, as the test was only conducted on men, from ages ranging from 25 to 40. While Milgrim’s experiment takes into consideration economic status and age (to a certain degree), it doesn’t factor in gender or include children and elderly. For more varied and accurate overall data, the test should be done on children and teenagers, as they don’t yet have a developed frontal lobe. The frontal lobe is crucial for decision-making and also plays an important role in problem-solving, emotion regulation, social interaction, and more. It would be interesting to see how the experiment would play out with “teachers” with underdeveloped frontal lobes, in comparison to the experiments with adults. Furthermore, some studies have proven that women tend to be more empathetic than men. This difference in empathy between men and women could result in variation in data, as female “teachers” might be less likely to not electrocute the “student” till the lethal level of voltage, as some men in Milgrim’s experiment did. As mentioned, being empathetic is a personality trait that could lead the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the “experimenters” commands to continue to shock the learner. Some other personal qualities could include being self-willed/headstrong, compassionate, and also proactive. I believe it is possible for us to attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, as we can instill in the youth the importance of standing up for what is right. It would also be possible by establishing a government that keeps unethical behavior from political authority figures in check with the introduction of a strict and universal morality code. On the other hand, I do think there is a danger in that as well, as if people are raised and taught to rebel for what they believe is right, there would be conflicts almost all the time, as there will always be disagreements between people. These disagreements could escalate into massive uproars which could have devastating consequences for all involved.

I think that most people have the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others but some are unable to. Most people have grown up in our society and have learned to be obedient to orders and to follow a hierarchy of authority. As kids, most of us listened to our parents and teachers and respected their power over us which has now grown to compliance to authority figures like the police and our boss. However, some few people do not follow orders and remain stubborn. As shown in the Milgram experiment, some people stood up to the experimenter and walked out of the experiment. This experiment suggests that when people are disconnected from their actions and feel little to no responsibility for their actions, they are more likely to do them even if it means harming others. I think that this experiment does show how ordinary people actively participate in violence and other cruel acts because they are acting upon someone else’s commands. People tend to not question authority because of society and as a result, act without thinking and obediently follow orders. Those who disobeyed the experimenter in the Milgram experiment probably had a high self esteem and a strong sense of self. They stood up for their beliefs and what they believed was right and stood against authority. It is very hard to create a society filled with these people as it contradicts society’s teachings. If everyone in the world were a leader, there would be lots of conflict because of opposing ideas and it would lead to chaos. However, it would be beneficial to question authority and stand up for ourselves without it leading to chaos. We need to get a balance of obedience and disobedience to have a “perfect” society. If there were no obedient and open-minded people, people with differing opinions would clash but without disobedience, there would not be potential for criticism and growth in society. In the article, “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, the ending states that we should hold those who give orders more accountable and I completely agree with this statement. Besides following societal norms of obedience, there are other factors to take into account. These people doing the acts could be threatened, shamed, attacked, or just doing their job. There could be negative repercussions if they refuse to do these acts of violence and are basically just forced to choose a bad scenario for themselves. Those ordering these acts of violence often faced zero to no repercussions for inaction and forced others to get their hands dirty. Most of the time, those who follow through with these acts have low self-esteem and are being manipulated. They believe that what they are doing must be for a greater good or cause so they blindly follow without a second thought.I think that they should be punished more harshly because they have to manipulate and use other unwilling people to get their dirty work done which is cruel.

Many philosophers have hypothesized that humans are inherently selfish and any system, whether it be government or social, that doesn’t recognize and account for this will fail. This idea is the main reason communism has failed over and over again, people can't help but think of their own interests first. This also means that people, when given power, will use it more selfishly rather than give it up for others. Although people want to believe that they are the best versions of themselves, the truth is that most of them are not, which is why I think that most people do have the potential to become a perpetrators of violence against others. In the Milgram experiment, the majority of people chose to hurt people for the preservation of their money and time. It wouldn't make sense for them to stick their necks out for a random person with whom they had no connection, because it would be a too much of a hassle to continue to fight with the experienter who had the expertise. This idea of it being too much work for not enough reward as well as them not wanting to overstep their place also contributes to peoples willingness to hurt others, since they wouldnt feel like they could make a difference alone or they don’t know what they’re talking about. Additionally, the experiment was set up where the experimenter was higher in authority and seemed to know more about the topic, making it hard for the teachers to stand up further than most of them did.

Additionally, giving any random person power to rule others goes back to the idea of humans being inherently selfish and serving for themselves. Despite how The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment tells the story of how extreme outcomes like this are brought on by extreme situations, a situation where society encourages traits of people who disobey authority figures is incredibly extreme and would have no doubt extreme consequences.

But however disheartening the results of Milgram's experiment may seem, at the end of the day it would’ve been much worse if most people had the traits to disobey orders. This kind of a society would be incredibly dysfunctional as people would be inclined to go against what's right just because it was an order. Although it can be beneficial for a strong willed person to step up if an authority figure turns to more of a dictator, most of the population lacks the ability to reason proficiently about the potential benefits and drawbacks of causing political turmoil unnecesarily. This is the very reason we have an electoral college deciding our president over the popular vote as well as senators representing us. Too many people with too many different opinions would cause more havoc and ultimately be more harmful than an authority figure. People should definitely step up against unethical authority figures, but these traits should not be encouragedin society as a whole because they come with a lot more baggage than just the ability to advocate.

I don’t believe that everyone has the capability to become a perpetrator of violence, but a good number of people do. If we think logistics wise, not everyone is able to stomach violence and gore. Even if it’s just hearing someone in pain, like in the Milgram experiment, there are at least a few people who wouldn’t be able to handle it. Now regardless, the Milgram experiment did expose a lot about human psychology and bring insight into why we behave the way we do. The Milgram experiment showed that when we are exposed to 2 uncomfortable choices, we choose the path of least resistance. For most individuals in the experiment, the path of least resistance was to continue to shock the learner, even if they thought it was wrong. Despite this choice however, people still ended up feeling guilty. To combat this guilt people tried to lessen their personal responsibility. If they weren’t held responsible for their actions, they wouldn’t feel as guilty about them. When people took away their personal responsibility, it was easier for them to inflict pain on the learner, even to deadly levels.

Given these findings, the Milgram experiment does explain how mass atrocities occurred, to an extent. Even when people disagreed with authority figures or the precedent set, they either complied out of wanting to fit in or because they didn’t feel personally responsible for what happened. Although it’s clear that people tend to blindly follow authority, there were other factors that came into play. These atrocities didn’t go 0 to 100 in a day, leaders took small deliberate steps towards what they wanted to achieve. Similarly to the Milgram experiment, leaders slowly increased the severity of their actions so that people wouldn’t realize how drastic the situation had become. It was much easier to accept the incremental addition of violence, surveillance, and discrimination, rather than suddenly end up under an authoritative government. Despite all this though, the study fails to consider how relationships played a huge role in these occurrences. In many world atrocities, there is an us vs them mentality. In the American South it was rich, land-owning whites, versus black slaves. During the Holocaust it was the Aryan race vs the Jews. This othering and dehumanization of a group of people made it far easier to commit violence against them. This idea was explored more in The Stanford prison experiment.

In the experiment, researchers purposefully gave the prisoners “a numbered gown” which was called a dress by them. They did this so that the prisoners would “feel humiliated” and “feel emasculated”. This humiliation would not only lessen the self-esteem of the prisoners, but also gave the guards reason to feel morally superior to them. This dynamic made it easier for the guards to be comfortable with harming the prisoners because they were already dehumanized and viewed as less than human. Furthermore, when the guards slowly started to increase their violence towards the prisoners, the warden would turn a blind eye which gave them implicit permission to continue their behavior. This experiment showed just how dangerous it can be to combine these different dynamics as it can create an environment for people to inflict pain on one another.

Despite the negative outcomes, these experiments did show some outliers. In the Milgram experiment some people chose to fight against the authority figure and stop shocking the learner even after considerable pressure. These people most likely stopped because they had higher self esteems and therefore were more steadfast in their beliefs. They are leaders in themselves and could be integral for preventing mass atrocities in a similar manner, by going against the status quo. There are other factors that would dissuade people from hurting the learner, mainly their relationship with the person they’re shocking. If the people who were the learners in the experiment were family members of friends of the teachers, they would have been far less likely to hurt them. Even if these people belonged to the same micro-communities, such as sharing a culture or being high school alumni, that could have been enough of a connection to stop them from continuing the experiment. Although there is a lot to learn from the Milgram and Stanford prison experiments, there are also many nuances that are lost through the processes used.

Regardless of how nice of a person you consider yourself to be, or how organized you

are, everyone may have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence under

certain conditions and circumstances. Situational factors, such as authority pressure, group

dynamics, and dehumanization, can all significantly influence our behavior in various ways. The

Milgram's experiment reveals that ordinary people can inflict pain on others when prompted by

authority figures, suggesting that situational factors and social pressures can override personal

morals. This indicates a disturbing potential within anyone to become a perpetrator of violence,

driven by obedience and the desire to conform. It also highlights how dehumanization and the

diffusion of responsibility can ultimately lead individuals to act against their morals and beliefs,

raising several questions about reliability and the nature of human behavior. In the text How

Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, by Joshua Barajas, it is stated

that Patrick Haggard, a co-author of a study on the Holocaust and its connections to the Milgram experiment, said, “In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from outcomes that they themselves caused”. This demonstrates that people feel disconnected from their actions when they obey orders, even though they’re the ones who are committing the

act, meaning that these people are almost justifying their actions by assuming since they were

told to do something, it’s not their fault.

The Milgram experiment is also able to provide crucial insights and information

supporting why ordinary people might end up participating in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. It demonstrates that under the influence of authority, individuals have the ability to

discard their moral beliefs and inflict pain on others with minimal remorse. However, this

specific situation where normal people succumb to committing violent crimes and atrocities is

very multifaceted. In addition to blind obedience to authority, several other factors have great

influence over the perpetrators, such as propaganda. Propaganda is the use of disinformation to

trick individuals to view certain individuals, groups, or cultures as “the enemy” justifying

harmful actions against them. Propaganda can also dehumanize victims, framing them as less

than human, which makes it easier for perpetrators to inflict pain without guilt in their minds.

Other more psychological factors, such as desensitization to acts of violence, can influence

perpetrators. Exposure to violence in our daily lives, whether watching the news, scrolling

through Instagram, or watching violent movies can desensitize us to violent acts as being normal

behavior. People can be numbed by their own suffering, as well as the suffering of others, which

might erode their sense of empathy over a period of time. Moreover, the distribution of

responsibility in group settings can lead people to feel less accountable for their actions,

believing that the burden of their decision is not only shared, but also that they are not

responsible.

Contradicting various parts of the what the Milgram experiment demonstrates to us, there were actually a few people out of the “teachers” who decided not to partake in the violent acts that they were ordered to complete. Several key factors influenced the “teachers”

in the experiment who chose to disobey the commands to continue shocking the “learner.”

Important traits in these teachers were a deep sense of personal ethics, strong morals, and the

feeling of empathy towards the “learner”, which meant they were more likely to hesitate and

resist the experimenter’s authority. Additionally, having the belief that they could influence the outcomes of the experiment, certain participants were empowered and refused to follow orders.

Awareness of the potential consequences of their actions, combined with a sense of

responsibility also contributed greatly to their willingness to disobey the orders of the

experimenter. Creating societies that value and encourage traits like critical thinking, moral

courage, and empathy, could help foster individuals who resist unethical authority and promote

the questioning of authority in situations of injustice. However, the potential issue with this is

that encouraging this behavior can lead to challenges against legitimate authority and possibly

create tensions or other divisions within society if it is not balanced with respect for order and

the laws.

Ordinary people's participation in violence is influenced by social factors and different psychological landscapes. For example, environment, peer pressure, fear, psychological distancing, and self-preservation lead to a false sense of justified dereliction. Blindly following authority accepts the theory that humans want to find themselves either reflected in their group, or to find themselves in the "ingroup". However, in the circumstances of violence and genocide, it isn't just about fitting into a group. It is about not accepting responsibility for disgusting acts, which includes doing nothing at all.

Being more willing to inflict pain on a stranger is easily accepted, but not acceptable, because why might we care about this person who holds no opinion of us, and doesn't deserve to perceive us? Authority is waiting to harm us if we do not cooperate with these acts. It doesn't matter if it will happen or not; It is the potential of it and our survival instinct. Heinous behavior is the responsibility of the perpetrator, but also the one who perpetuates the behavior, and ultimately causes harm.

Similarly to the Milgram experiment, which demonstrated how individuals can follow orders to inflict pain on others simply because an authority figure is present, the Stanford experiment revealed how situational factors can lead ordinary people to engage in dehumanizing behavior. When individuals perceive others as less than human or as belonging to an out-group, they become more willing to harm them. This process is facilitated by propaganda or rhetoric that frames the victims as threats or undeserving of empathy. Psychological distancing makes it easier for individuals to rationalize their actions, reducing their emotional engagement with the suffering they cause. In both cases, individuals were placed in environments where obedience and conformity were prioritized over personal ethics and empathy.

In the Stanford experiment, participants assigned as guards quickly adopted authoritarian roles, showing that power can corrupt and foster cruelty, even in those who might not otherwise exhibit such behavior. The influence of peers and social groups cannot be underestimated. Individuals often seek approval from their peers, leading them to conform to group norms, even when those norms include violent behavior. Peer pressure can create an "us versus them" mentality, fostering a willingness to engage in harmful acts to maintain group cohesion. This highlights the danger of situational forces in shaping actions, suggesting that people can become desensitized to violence when it is framed as an accepted norm within a group.

The dynamic of group identity plays a crucial role. People often feel a sense of belonging or safety when they align with the values of their ingroup, which can lead to moral disengagement when confronted with acts of violence against out-group members. Fear can be a powerful motivator for violence. When individuals perceive threats to their safety or the safety of their group, they may resort to aggression as a means of self-preservation. This survival instinct can override moral considerations, leading individuals to inflict pain on others as a way to protect themselves or their in-group. This can manifest a willingness to justify or overlook heinous acts, as long as they are committed in the name of the group's perceived interests. The desire for identity and belonging drives individuals to act out because when people feel a strong connection to a group, they may prioritize the group's goals over their ethical considerations. This sense of belonging can create a powerful incentive to engage in harmful actions that align with group norms or objectives.

While the responsibility for violent acts lies primarily with the perpetrators, those who remain complicit contribute substantially to an environment where such behavior can thrive. The fear of authority, the desire for acceptance, and the instinct for self-preservation can all lead individuals to participate in or tolerate acts of violence, highlighting the complex interplay of personal accountability and social influence.

I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. The reason why I say this is because of the obedience theory. The obedience theory is when we follow the societal norm to follow orders and not be considered as a ‘rule breaker’. This is seen in the Milgram experiment with the teacher and student. Although the teacher had wanted to stop shocking the learner, he continued to do so as the authority figure, the experimenter , instructed him to continue on. I think that even if we are unhappy with the decision, we often choose to follow the directions we are given. This is evident with the teacher becoming the perpetrator, which means that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator, even in the most unlikely or unanticipated scenarios. I think that the Milgram experiment suggests that humans are susceptible to influence, as evidenced by someone who we see with more power making it possible to inflict pain on others. To add, a consistency seen within human behavior is the desire we have to pursue fitting into societal norms, or in other words the ingroup. Due to this fact, I believe that human behavior suggests that an individual can be influenced when a part of a group. Group mentality coupled with an authority suggesting a particular behavior, allows for individual thought, and potentially following a personal moral compass to be discarded when overshadowed by the majority; as evidenced by the atrocities that took place on January 6th at our Nation’s capital.

I think one factor that led to the teachers in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters is the factor of awareness. I think given that the teachers were aware of the impact they had been making had resulted in those who were willing to go against order and follow their own morals. I think if the teachers were unaware of what was happening to the learner then they would be more likely to continue with the experiment since they don't know the impact that they are creating, causing them to be more willing to listen to the authority figure given that they had been originally told that the experiment would not cause any harm. This would result in a greater amount of obedience because of the tendency to listen to authority figures when we ourselves are unsure about something. This lack of awareness would also result in people feeling “ disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” .( Bargas 1) With the feeling of disconnect and the lack of awareness, we tend to migrate towards authority. I think if we create societies that are informed with all current events, then that would be helpful because then with increased awareness of the impact of our actions and how they may contribute to violent acts then individuals may be less likely to perpetrate violence against others. I think everyone should be aware of what is going on around them because then we would be less likely to participate in activities that would cause harm, with this being said I do not think that there is a danger to this.

I believe that all people have the potential to do harm to others. The Milgram Experiment backs this up because people will do almost anything so long as they know they’re not responsible. In the experiment, the men administering the shocks continued to give them even though the subject expressed their dislike and discontent. Some of the men giving the shocks said they wouldn’t continue. When the operator told them they must continue, they didn’t continue. It was only when the operator told the teacher that the teacher isn’t responsible for any harm done that the teacher stopped. I believe this is because the teacher wanted to trust the operator and found it easier to do so knowing the operator held all responsibility. The article How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind relates to this idea. This is because many Nazis who were told to carry out parts of the Holocaust used the excuse that they were “just following orders” when they were tried at Nuremberg. This rationalization became common after World War II. Clearly people will be more inclined to do horrible things to other people when the responsibility isn’t on them. Other factors besides the “lack of responsibility” factor that contribute to our potential for dark behavior include violence, propaganda, mobs, societal problems, and more. Violence can allow us to do bad things because when we’re threatened with violence, often we will more likely do what the person inflicting the violence asks of us. For example, when the government says they’ll use violence in order to enforce the law, then we obey the law much more easily. Propaganda is also very effective. This is due to the fact that propaganda spreads harmful ideas quickly and properly. Nazi propaganda helped Hitler gain power in Germany. That led to his people mostly becoming followers of him. This in turn then allowed for the cult of Germans that were annoyed with the world to flock to Hitler. Active mobs also promote bad behavior. This is because rules don’t always apply to a mob’s mentality. This is because mobs will think differently, so we think that it’s not our responsibility whatever happens. Another important factor that allows humans to do such horrible deeds is charisma. When charismatic leaders speak, like Trump or Hitler, take office, there’s more of a chance of people doing as they say. When charismatic speakers speak, it’s captivating because they talk well and not monotonic. Bad behavior is also created by societal pressure. People don’t quit something when everyone else loves it. When millions of Germans signed up for the Nazi Party, it was easy to stick with it because of all the other people with the same patch. Another part of bad behavior is problems in the world. After World War I, Germans had little money and also lost much land. This created societal unrest. This gave way to a leader like Hitler. Because problems in Germany were so bad during the interwar period, people were okay with electing a leader that would do awful things.