learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by D4T4ZOID on September 22, 2025 09:05

I believe the Milgram’s experiment is a good example and accurate in the way the tasks given puts into effect one's morality, and in a way tests people's mental health with a link to self worth. Many factors get looked over when using the words mass atrocities and genocide, many off the bat like to believe they wouldn’t have a part in it. That though even if they “don’t have the power to do anything” they would at least not add fuel to the fire. But looking at how many act towards topics like Palestine in modern day, they tend to contradict themselves. For example in the reading A Matter of Obedience A quote that fits well with this topic is “It is difficult to harm a person we touch. It is somewhat easier to afflict pain upon a person we only see at a distance. It is still easier in the case of a person we only hear. It is quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear.” When one thinks of the word genocide most go to the extremes, like actively knowing your giving money to people who buy weapons and kill innocents. Because despite not seeing or hearing the people you'd be harming, it will still be on your conscience. But that's speaking from a moral standpoint, logistically you get nothing from it as well. But if the people, or company disguises their intentions behind plastic cups filled with expensive coffee that's a different story. You may hear about sed companies intentions, but you can easily blow it off, "It's just one cup, what's the harm it will cause? It’s not my problem.” Cup after cup the money you spend builds up, take that into account and multiply it by the people in front of you in line. Now think, what about the other store by the same company just a few blocks away? How many people are in those lines too, how much are they spending?

In today's society intentions are hidden by small tricks and treats that many can look over on, because it's something they want. Just like big companies who want raw material for their next phone or car design, who are willing to destroy and kill for land. Morality is tricky. Follow the norm, flip the switch, “who cares if the man on the other side gets shocked? He didn’t answer the question right, I’m simply doing as told.” Buy that coffee, it's in the seasonal flavor you've waited months for. “What the company does with my money doesn’t matter to me, it's not my problem.” This is the mentality of many, just like the people who took part in Milgram's experiment. Many with a low self worth look over factors like this too greatly. That is not to say everyone who has this mindset has a low sense of self, it's the fact that they are more prone to it. They believe that no matter what they do it wont make a difference, good

Something I found really interesting about your post was the rhetorical questions you ask at the end of the first paragraph. Considering how lengthy your opening paragraph is, it helps the reader zone in on your main point and emphasizes the importance of it. I also noticed that, like many of the other posts, low self worth was mentioned as one of the reasons for mass atrocity being so widely supported. I agree with this because when people have a lower view of themselves, they are less likely to feel bad when doing harmful things to others because they have no prior expectations or morals to follow.

However, to improve your post, I think giving the first paragraph more clarity and removing some of the wordiness would help the reader comprehend the point you’re trying to get out more easily. While reading it, I found that the constant use of “it”, “but”, and “because” as sentence starters made it not only hard to follow, but also hard to understand what you were referring back to. Also, the quote integration at times was a little difficult to read as most of the time it was placed in between sentences and hardly developed.

Nonetheless, the post has good ideas and developed topics and I really liked how you connected almost all of your ideas back to the text you cited.

Although the Milgram experiment does reveal some causes for obedience to commit violence, it doesn’t fully capture the motives of people actively participating in mass genocides and atrocities. Originally meant to research the psychology of perpetrators of the Holocaust, the experiment falls short to explain peoples’ personal motives. Out of material gain or personal hatred, people can also commit mass atrocities. In A Matter of Obedience?, that article claims that “even within the German government and military, leaders and bureaucrats took initiative and devised creative methods to achieve larger goals, not in response to orders but in an effort to ‘work toward the Führer’”. These people have a stronger sense of self and the influences of mass movements enforce their actions or beliefs. Besides the pressure of authoritative demands, there are people that can naturally exhibit pathological behavior.

In the video about the Milgram Experiment that we watched, I do not think everyone naturally has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but I do believe that there are certain situations that can heavily influence people to act in ways that they typically wouldn’t. The Milgram experiments demonstrate that human behavior is shaped by authority and how responsibility is distributed. When we feel uncertain or unqualified, we tend to put our trust in people who seem to have more knowledge or hold power over us. In the experiment, participants were told to continue shocking the “learner” because “the experiment must go on,” and many complied even though they clearly felt uncomfortable. One participant even admitted that he didn’t want to do it, but he justified his actions because the experimenter kept pressuring him. This shows that in environments where people feel responsibility has been shifted away from them, they may act violently or against their own moral code. It wasn’t that the participants were naturally violent, it was the structure of the experiment and the authority figure’s commands that made them capable of causing harm. I think Milgram’s study explains an important piece of how ordinary people are able to commit terrible acts, but it doesn’t explain everything. Blind obedience to authority is described, but real world violence often involves additional pressures. For example, people may follow along because they are afraid of punishment, or because they want to belong to the larger group, which ties back to the idea of conformity. Propaganda and prejudice can also convince people that their victims deserve what’s happening to them, making their cruel actions seem justified. In the case of genocide, leaders that are able to organize these mass atrocities/genocides often dehumanize groups of people, which makes it easier for ordinary citizens or soldiers to carry out violence without feeling the same level of guilt. Social pressures, fear, and ideology all add a sense of depth to the obedience Milgram demonstrated. So while the experiment helps us understand the fundamentals or basics of obedience, it cannot fully capture the full thought process of why people commit these violence acts. It shows us how people can follow harmful orders, but in real life there are also social expectations involved. The Milgram experiment also shows that not everyone obeyed to the demands blindly. Some people refused to continue, even under pressure. The ones who refused to continue seemed to have stronger confidence in their own judgment, and a better sense of empathy. They also seemed to display a strong sense of mortal conviction that remained strong even under great pressure from the experimenter. These three traits of self-awareness, compassion, and moral conviction are what helped them break from authority and stop. I think that these qualities should be appreciated. Such as teaching people to develop critical thinking skills and stand up for what they believe is right could prevent blind obedience from leading to harm. At the same time, there can be a risk if resistance to authority becomes way too common and too much. If everyone rejects authority just because they themselves disagree, there would be no respect for necessary laws or structures. The challenge is balance between the two, we need people who are brave enough to disobey unethical commands, but who can also recognize when authority is legitimate and helpful. In the end, Milgram’s experiment doesn’t just warn us about obedience, it also shows us the importance of refusing to do something or challenging it when authority crosses the line.

Originally posted by I_G0t_r1ch_1n_my Amirizz on September 23, 2025 09:34

It’s difficult to believe that even the innocent can conform to becoming the perpetrator, but throughout history this pattern inevitably defined many historical events. . The idea of us vs you symbolizes that there are always winners and losers. Losers-people who are demonized for beliefs that do not coincide with the general public. There are two types of winners: the first are those who conform out of fear of being perpetrated and so they disregard all personal morality for the sake of becoming a beneficiary; the second, are those whose confirmation biases are so strong that they disregard the opposing group. The Milgram experiment demonstrates this hypothesis; the experiment suggests that there is a human tendency to conform to popular views. For example, In one version of the experiment, there are three teachers-two of which are actors and one being the real participant. The actors were assigned to leave the experiment when the voltage rose too high. The study showed that the participant would then leave the experiment as well, therefore conforming to the popular view. While this is true, 65% of participants-when involved with the experiment alone- would continue to shock the Learner to the highest voltage. The idea of there being two winners could have been at play, meaning that there are two reasons why the participant may have continued to administer the shock of high voltage . The first reason: the participants feared the figure of authority-the instructors of the experiment who were instructed to repeat the phrase “ You have no other choice, you must go on”. In this way they became the beneficiary because the participant feared the consequences of disobeying the figure of authority. If the participant disobeyed the overviewer, it could be argued that they feared being subjected to the same treatment as the learner. I believe that when placed in a position where the consequences outweigh upholding moral standards, anyone could conform to the winners. The Salem witch trials of Massachusetts in 1692-1693 serves as a powerful historical example of this type of conformity. To avoid wrongful persecution or suspicion, people would suspect others to avoid becoming the losing group. People persecuted women-this group was deemed the losers-out of fear of being trialed for execution. They created ideas, attempted to reason, and argue that their actions were justified. The Red Scare of 1947-1957 supports this conformity. When hysteria arose, the popular view demonized any who supported communism or were suspected of supporting communism. In a country where free speech and ideas founded the base of liberty-persecuting those for opinion does not uphold these values. This illustrates the idea of conforming to the winners or the popular view. The second reason: the participants completely disregarded the ethical responsibility and administered the voltage out of satisfaction. They find pleasure in being in a position of power. By human nature, being in control is what the majority of people want. This can be seen in the Nazi movement. People conformed to the movement because they found satisfaction in being in a position of power. Anti simetic-ideologies racist ideologies positioned Germans in a position of power to subjugate Jewish peoples. Kristallnacht-a violent uprising where Nazi germany destroyed jewish markets and homes demonstrates this idea We want to be winners even if that means disregarding the consequences the losers face. A lust for Power is human nature.

After reading my peers' learn to question, I thought it was very interesting. The most compelling idea to me was pointing out the two types of winners. The ones who conform out of fear of being perpetrated, so they disregard all personal morality for the sake of becoming a beneficiary; the others, are those whose confirmation biases are so strong that they disregard the opposing group. I agreed with this because it helps to see why people act on their morals in different ways than others. I like the connection to the Milgram experiment and how it ties into more important historical events. In another post I read, people emphasized the role that authority figures have in conformity. This connects to your first type of winner and it builds on the idea of conformity and how it can be sought out. From my own ideas, I think my view is similar to yours as we both explain the same reasons for why regular people participate in mass violence. I talked mostly about the influence of authority figures and how responsibility was what frightened them in this experiment. You highlighted how people fear becoming the target in power. I think both of our ideas touch on the same points of conformity and why people are so easily influenced to follow others' orders. Similarly, I think my writing aligns more with your first type of winner. I think we differ on your second type of winner, I don't talk much on the idea that people may enjoy inflicting harm, though I agree that history shows this. I think people have to be influenced in a way and then maybe they do enjoy it. I think your examples are really strong and your argument is powerful as well. If you had to change something, I would talk more about WHY humans have this desire for power because I think it would strengthen your argument. You could include what we talked about in class about social identity or dehumanization. Overall, I think your response to this was really good and I agree with your ideas.

Originally posted by 1984 George Orwell on September 23, 2025 21:24

I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Although we may be good people at heart who don’t believe in violence and hurting others, if it becomes personal, then our emotions will suppress our logical judgement. For example in the Milgram experiment, the teacher began to ask to stop giving the electric shocks to the learner as the voltages increased, and the experimenter told the teacher to keep going because we need to complete the experiment. If the experimenter said that he will kidnap the teacher’s family if he doesn’t continue. This type of threat can enhance the emotions inside of the teacher and so, he will inflict pain on others for the sake of his own family. Not even thinking about the consequences and the family of the learner. The “human heart of darkness” is real; as stated in the article Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments (Cari Romm, 2015). Our potential to become violent and cruel is real under certain pressures. The cruelty isn’t only in an ‘evil’ person but can come to anyone under certain conditions. This is still something that is being studied because researchers are reshaping his experiment stating that “Milgram’s lessons on human obedience are, in fact, misremembered—that his work doesn’t prove what he claimed it does”.

Some aspects of human behavior that are suggested through the experiment is obedience to authority, diffusion of responsibility, and setting the norms. People often follow directions from someone they see as a trusted authority figure, such as a scientist or teacher, because they believe that person knows best. This obedience can become so strong that it pushes them to ignore their feelings of discomfort, even when they think the action might be wrong. Instead of taking accountability for their actions, the participants believed the experimenter is responsible for their actions because he knows more than them. Lastly, creating a habit of obeying harmless commands establishes a sense of social pressure that makes it much harder to resist harmful commands later on.

The other factors that may come into play are how far the consequences will go. If we tie our personal experiences and relationships into the mix. Our feelings will cloud our judgement because we want to protect what we love. We are more likely to go the full way without thinking about the consequences that will occur for the person this pain is being put on.

Some important personality traits that led the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment to disobey the ‘experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the ‘learner’ were if the teachers had higher compassion, stronger moral reasoning, and a high sense of responsibility. People who were more sensitive felt strong emotional discomfort to the pain of the learner.

Because they felt compassion and empathy for the learner, they would be more likely to refuse the simple harsh commands. Those who had strong ethical values were able to judge the commands if they were right or wrong based on what they believed. It allowed them to resist the pressure from the experimenter. Lastly, They had a high sense of personal responsibility because they weren’t able to put all the blame on the authoritative figure. Because they were the ones completing the actions and not the experimenter; they held themselves accountable for their actions. In conclusion, there are many different factors that play out in the teacher’s decision to either continue with the experiment or not.

I agree with my peers' ideas that everyone does have the potential to be a perpetrator of violence. Similarly to my peer, I do believe that the Milgram experiment illustrated how a clear, strong, authority figure giving orders and instructions to someone below them can also influence the teachers decision to act on those orders given, even if it means to continue inflicting pain onto another person. I also believe that the teacher would follow the experimenter's instructions because there is also an aspect of fear towards an authority figure. You made a good point of an example of if the experimenter threatened to kidnap the teacher's family, that would also create a sense of action because threats can cause impulse. You also made a really good point for a real world idea about how personal relationships and emotions alter your judgement and the way you act. A good factor you took from the Milgram experiment was that those who had stronger moral values were less likely to continue harming the student. They had a stronger mind to resist these cruel commands and felt more personally responsible, compared to those who more easily followed the commands because the blame for the harm caused on the student wasn’t on them.

Originally posted by user1234567 on September 19, 2025 13:24

Experiments like Milgram's explains ordinary peopels participation in violence, specifically in genocide. In the Milgram study, the men are initially nervous when they hear the pain they are inflicting onto another person. From this reluctance they turn to the person in charge of the experiment with concern, at this moment they don’t want to continue the experiment. However, once the authoritative person tells them that they are not responsible for anything that happens during the experiment, they are less worried about the effects of their actions, showing that people are more concerned about their consequences than their actions. Once the teachers are aware they are freed of responsibility they continue with the experiment, some still hesitate but with firm, short commands from someone in a position of higher power they continue. Similarly, Nazis post WWII say that they only contributed and participated in these mass murders because they were told to by a higher power. Someone as powerful as Hitler, and people in similar places of power were obviously adamant about their beliefs; it is hard to go against them. Another factor is similar to the experiment, that even though they are reluctant, there is a relief of no responsibility. This is where I think the “mob mentality” plays, the Nazis influence was powerful because there were so many of them. However, because there was so many of them, there is no way to blame just one individual person, they are anonymous; in a mob their ideas, emotions, and maybe even excitement is intensified just by being with a large group of people, they are also being led by someone who is acknowledging that what they are doing is for good, all of these increase the likeness of the Nazis to be more blind when following authority, and less empathic of the people they are hurting. Another factor that went into the callous doing of the Nazis is because of cognitive dissonance. Even if a Nazi knew what they were doing, they could think “ya it's bad, but everyone is doing it” or “Hitler is in a higher position of power than me, he knows what he's talking about.” By doing this they are creating the idea in their head that what they are doing isn't that bad, or they are moving the responsibility of their actions onto the fact that it is “normal” because all the other Nazis are doing it, and following orders. Disobeying someone of higher authority is really difficult, especially in the circumstances of WWII, however for the people in the experiment they were not being forced, life or death, to do anything. When one man in the experiment was interviewed after the test was over he said “I was getting ready to walk out.” But he never really did. Being alone in a room with someone of higher authority puts enough pressure on him to stay and continue to inflict pain on someone. One man, however, did resist completely. I would characterize him as really brave, because defending your morals when you think there is no other option is rare. I think that people are taught to be independent, and stand up for what you believe in, but as shown in the experiment people didn't. I think that encouraging people to be more resilient and not just following along with any person, because a really important aspect to both WWII and the experiment is that, just because someone with higher power is telling you to do something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

I found this writing to be very interesting and I agree with many of the points that have been stated here. I especially liked how you went into great detail about the Nazi’s during and after World War two, and how they often tried to shift the blame onto others saying that they never truly harmed anyone, and that they were just an accessory of the fact. The point about the “mob mentality” is a very good one as it closely relocates the Nazis and what they did. It is very easy to say that you were just following orders, especially from someone as cruel and unforgiving as Adolf Hitler. I agree with your point that disobeying an order from somebody that is higher ranked or holds more power is much more difficult than it seems. In order to keep your status, safety, and possibly life, you must conform to what the leaders command and fall into line with the rest of the people. However, when one person finally decides that they have had enough and steps out and revolts, it opens the doors for many others to follow him as if they do, they have a chance of overtaking the person in power and standing for what they believe in.

Originally posted by ChickenBurger on September 23, 2025 08:43

I firmly hold the belief that people hold the potential to become the perpetrators of violence once, if not multiple times in their life, especially after watching the Milgram Experiment videos. Even though people may say and believe that they would not fold under pressure and harm anyone, a great majority of the people would commit terrible under the correct circumstances. When someone is placed in a position where they have an extreme lack of knowledge of the situation, they become susceptible to peer pressure, mostly when the person pressuring them has or seems to have a better understanding of the situation at hand. This is shown perfectly in the Milgram experiment, as people were offered a low amount of money from an ad in the newspaper to come in for an experiment. In this experiment, they are to quiz a person in another room, and if they ever answer incorrectly, they are to be shocked by the volunteer with the voltage going up to a deadly level of 450 volts. As the voltage increased, the person being “shocked” would also cry out in pain and ask to stop due to a heart problem, and they stop responding at the highest voltages. What the person does not know is that nobody is being shocked and they are being tested on how much pain they will inflict on a person when they are being instructed to do so. While the results of this experiment vary, most of the volunteers for this experiment chose to continue shocking the person despite the fact that they showed clear signs of wanting to stop the experiment.

They also tested how obedient a person would be to commands in different situations. In FH’s A Matter of Obedience, it is discussed how some volunteers were right next to the person being shocked and it caused them to obey the orders less, while volunteers that were in a separate room and could only hear the voice of the person were much more likely to follow these orders. “When the teacher was required to touch the learner by forcing the learner’s hand onto the plate from which the shock was delivered, 30% of the teachers proceeded to the most severe shock. When the teacher did not touch the learner but remained in the same room, obedience to go all the way increased to 40%. When the teachers were placed in a separate room from which they could hear the voice of the learner but not see him, obedience increased to 62.5%. When the learner did not speak but only banged on the wall to indicate distress, obedience increased to 65%. When the teacher could neither see nor hear the learner at all, obedience reached almost 100%.” This evidence shows direct correlation between obedience and humanization of the victim. When a person is face to face with the person they are going to harm, it makes it much harder for them to carry through with the act as they see the person and every emotion they are going through. However, when someone is alone in a room, and a mere push of a button hurts someone else, it becomes a lot easier to continue with these acts as it allows us to dehumanize the victim. In society, this is seen every day as we need to strive for a society where violence is seen as a horrible act whether you are right next to them or miles away pushing a few buttons.

I agree with their first point that “people hold the potential to become the perpetrators of violence once, if not multiple times in their life,” because after watching the experiment videos, it was clear that some of the “teachers” were continuing the experiment, even if they weren’t calling it “harming”. Coming to the realization of this experiment, all of these people were under the command of peer pressure to continue to see what they would do, as in continue to “harm” the learner or to “keep the learner alive”. Most of the “teachers” were most likely doing it for the money and if they stopped doing the experiment, they would probably think they would not end up getting paid because they did not listen to the experimenter’s instruction. With the results of this experiment, most of the “teachers,” chose to continue shocking the “learner” , not caring about the ways they wanted the experiment to stop.

Based on my views and the peers I am responding to, we are very much similar. Based on what I wrote in my own response and what my peer wrote, we had the same views and opinions on the Milgram experiment. We both talked about how during the experiment, it is easy to tell that people have potential of becoming perpetrators based on their ability to “harm” people, even when it is fake, but they are not aware of it because the main idea of the experiment was to see if they would stop based on their instincts. I thought it was pretty interesting that the results were very much the same among all of the volunteers. Before watching the video, I thought most people would have stopped just by the actions and words of the “learner”. They would be asked to say “my heart hurts,” make noises as if they were getting harmed, and even stop responding as the volts started to increase as the experiment continued.

Originally posted by EmmetOlive14 on September 22, 2025 19:46

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others especially after watching the video on the Milgram experiment. This is mainly because of a few key points accessed during the experiment. The layout of the experiment is a teacher and a student who are both supposedly volunteers being payed money to take part in the experiment. But it turns out that the only person who is the volunteer is the teacher. The student is someone who is involved in the experiment and knows what is going on. The teacher believes that he or she is shocking the student every time that he or she gets the matching question wrong. These shocks supposedly range up to 450 volts but the whole experiment there is no one being shocked. The teacher believes that the student is getting shocked due to the expressed pain and words he is saying to the teacher but they are in separate rooms. When the teacher tries to stop shocking the student someone in the room tells them to continue and claims that he will not get in trouble if anything happens. Even if they could be killing a man the amount of people that continued the experiment was shocking.“At the time, when Milgram described this experiment to a group of 39 psychiatrists, the psychiatrists predicted that one participant in 1,000 would continue until he or she delivered the most severe shock, 450 volts. In reality, 62.5% of participants did”(Bauman 2). After the test 62.5% of the participants would have killed the man just because of the soft orders of the other man in the room. This one singular stat from the experiment expresses to me that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator to violence. But the key point of this experiment roots back to obedience. Without the other man in the room telling the people completing the experiment to continue to keep shocking the student I strongly believe that most if not all of them would've stopped completely and left the experiment. This directly shows how the law of obedience directly affects others. This shows how although us as people may be very against violence, and would never aim to hurt others in any kind of way the law of obedience directly shows how drastically others may be affected by simple orders by others which is directly highlighted in the Milgram experiment.

I think that experiments like the milgram experiment do explain why ordinary people end up taking part in violence, and mass atrocities. I believe that this can be caused from the law of obedience and influence from others around them such as bad role models or gang activity but I also think that the influence of one other ordinary person such as friend can cause a large impact on any of us. I think that ordinary people that act in violence can also be affected by many other things such as mental illness. When we watched the video about the man who sexually assaulted the 12 year old it was very clear that the man who committed such an atrocious act suffered from many kinds of mental illness that brought him into committing such horrible things.

Post your response here.

I think one of your most compelling ideas is that obedience is the key factor in why ordinary people commit acts of violence. I agree with you that the Milgram experiment demonstrates that extremely powerfully. The way you highlighted the statistic that 62.5% of participants went all the way to the highest voltage was especially effective. It really emphasizes how easily people can become perpetrators when under authority. I also appreciated how you connected this experiment to a lot of real-world contexts, like gang activity or having negative role models. These connections show that you were thinking beyond the experiment and were able to apply it to broader human behavior that we see everyday.

Another thing I found interesting is how you also considered mental illness as a contributing factor to violence, especially when referencing the case study we watched. Though I agree that mental health can play a role, I think your point about obedience is stronger, since in the Milgram study, even mentally healthy people were willing to inflict pain. This also leads me to wonder whether or not obedience might sometimes outweigh other factors.

I also believe ordinary people are more vulnerable to becoming violent than we'd like to admit, especially when under pressure from authority figures. One suggestion is to consider the difference between authority and peer influence. Your point about the impact of 'one ordinary person' was extremely thought provoking and I would love to hear more about how more positive influences could prevent violence.