Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Based on the Milgram experiment, I believe that most people do have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. In the passage Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, It describes that the majority of the “ teachers” in the experiment went to the highest shock even when the “learner” complained of a heart condition, and was complaining about the pain of the shocks. You would think that they are bad people for doing this, and that they had the power to stop it, but in reality the “teachers” felt pressure from the instructors to continue, and they believed that they had to obey. It’s easy to say that you’d never do something until you’re in a position that may require you to do what you never in a million years believed you would do, and this is shown all throughout the experiment. In the video we watched in class, you could see that once the “learner” started to talk about his heart condition, they were hesitant and spoke to the instructor, and once repeatedly told to keep going, the “teacher” continued. All of this can be supported by the Obedience Theory, which basically states that humans tend to obey authority, and still do what they say even when the authority figure may not be present. This could be due to uncertainty and confusions in a situation, or even if they know that they will not be responsible if harm is to be caused. This theory was clearly shown throughout the Milgram experiment, and because the instructor kept stating that the teacher must continue no matter what goes on in the other room, most people continued.
An example to also support the Milgram experiment is the story of Gypsy Rose. Gypsy Rose at the time was a young girl, who was given medicine by her mother to make her appear disabled, and her mother did many other things to manipulate Gypsy. Gypsy’s story is an interesting one because she finds a guy online and after talking romantically for a while, they come up with a plan to kill Gypsy’s mother. Gypsy had been tired of the mistreatment and manipulation of her mother, and she and the boy made a plan and the boy killed Gypsy’s mother. After the incident, Gypsy couldn’t believe what they had just done, and that moment haunted her for a long time. Gypsy probably never thought of herself as a murderer, but because of what her mother had been doing to her since she was born, she built up enough hatred to be able to want to unalive her mother. This just goes to show that most people definitely are capable of being a perpetrator of violence, and it really just depends on where they find themselves in certain circumstances. This obviously doesn’t justify bad behavior, but before calling someone a bad person, think about why they say the things they do, do the things they do, and what could have led them to have the opinions they do.
Mattapan, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
LTQ Post 2: The Milgram Experiment and Obedience Theory
Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. Based on the Obedience Theory, as well as the Stanford Prison experiment, I have gathered that based on how people perceive their own actions, and the basis as to which their actions are presented to them, humans are more likely to follow what a figure they view as authority commands them to do, disregarding what the receiver of the action will feel, or think, due to a lack of personal responsibility unto the person following the command. Considering the Milgram experiments tests, the Milgram experiment suggests that humans need to know they will not be responsible for the harm they willingly inflict onto others, and have someone else to blame, such as a figure of authority. In an article on the Milgram experiment by Joshua Barajas in 2016, he states that “...people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” (Barajas 1). Beside following authority blindly, I would say a person's self-esteem plays a part in whether or not they feel inclined to obey a figure of authority. The experiment reflects that if people have a higher education and self-esteem, they are more likely to think about what they are doing and imply a more personal consequence of their actions onto themselves, these people are less susceptible to peer pressure and stand on their beliefs. However, people without a high education and who have lower self-esteem are more likely to immediately obey the figure of authority, instead of questioning their actions because they already think lowly of themselves and think that their “commander” knows more than they do. These factors all contribute to whether or not ordinary people will inflict harm on others. Which leads into the next topic.
Ordinary people actively participate in violence, mass atrocities and genocide because of what I think are two main social psychological theories, Groupthink and the Obedience Theory. If someone has a charismatic personality—one that wills people to listen to them— and a strong sense of self and beliefs, people in need of a community will look to that person and follow their lead. Which silences their own morals and choices. Due to the fact that they are in a group of people who are following the same actions, the feeling of their actions become impersonal and they are able to rationalize what they are doing by saying, “I was just following orders,”. This can be seen during the Holocaust, famously Adolf Eichmann, the Holocaust organizer wrote that he was “...forced to serve as [a] mere instrument…” (Barajas 1). This quote I think really blends in well with the Obedience Theory. As we can see Eichmann projects all of his responsibility as the one who is physically committing the actions onto his superiors because “they were the ones in charge”. Any ordinary person who is able to follow orders, under certain circumstances such as how they take to peer pressure and how solid they are in their own beliefs have the ability to actively participate in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. We can also factor in personalization. The people committing these atrocities don't usually personally know the people they are committing these actions against. This creates impersonality and makes the victims an “it” instead of an actual person, dehumanizing the victims and making the offender feel less bad, justifying their actions.
In any case, important factors we need to consider in the “teachers” who had stopped shocking the students during the Milgram experiments were their education level, their social status, as well as their self-esteem. I think these factors were the most prevalent during the experiment as people with a higher education level are more likely to question authority and their actions, contrasting against people who have a lower self-esteem who don’t question authority as often. Which brings me to my last point, as a society, I think we have to some extent created spaces in which the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures are valued. This may be reaching but I think a large example of this is the Civil Rights Movement. A group of people (used loosely) was able to question and rebel against an unethical and unjust authority figure (the government), even while other people—who arguably held the same traits as the followers listed earlier—were blindly following authority figures. In the future I do think we can work towards creating a society in which people largely value the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, but in the environment that we are in today, I do not think that will happen any time soon.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 3
I think that everyone to some extent does possess the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. The Milgram experiments suggest that most people do have the potential to willingly harm others, especially when an authority figure tells them that it is okay to do, or that they must do it. These people would most likely never normally be willing to inflict pain on others, however under the right conditions, and with the pressure of an authority figure, they could be coerced into doing so. I think that we would all probably like to believe that we would be above this, and that we would be able to avoid falling into this trap, however the studies seem to show that for most of us this is not the case. Humans are wired to conform to the group, and follow authority figures, which the Milgram experiment showed can cause us to commit violent acts that we would otherwise never think to, with the right pressure of a person in authority.
I think that Milgram’s experiment does a good job of explaining a large part of people’s willingness to get swept up in mass movements, committing acts of violence in the process; blind obedience to an authority figure. His experiments proved that even the simple authority commanded by a lab coat was enough to coerce otherwise well intentioned people into committing violent acts against others. When instead of just a lab coat, this authority figure is a charasmatic celebrity, or the leader of a country, it is even easier to fall into this trap. Outside of the pressure of an authority figure, I think that people can become swept up in mass movements due to pressures of conformity to the group, the desire for radical change, and a weak self image, which leads people to seek out strong leaders, and a group which will accept them, so long as they are willing to follow.
I think that the “teachers” who were willing to disobey the authority figures of the “scientists” to harm the “learners” were people with strong senses of self, who likely felt that they were not the kind of people to harm others, leading to an inability to cognitively dissonate. People with weaker senses of self would likely be more able to cognitively dissonate as they would feel less conflicted about their actions. I think that prioritizing the importance of strong self identity in early education could help to produce more people who are willing to defy the authority figure in doing something they believe to be wrong. The only danger of this could potentially be over inflating some peoples ego, perhaps due to the fact that some with naturally/already strong senses of self worth could be having this message too heavily reinforced to them.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 3
Originally posted by
ghnmnk on September 24, 2025 08:02
I think that everyone to some extent does possess the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. The Milgram experiments suggest that most people do have the potential to willingly harm others, especially when an authority figure tells them that it is okay to do, or that they must do it. These people would most likely never normally be willing to inflict pain on others, however under the right conditions, and with the pressure of an authority figure, they could be coerced into doing so. I think that we would all probably like to believe that we would be above this, and that we would be able to avoid falling into this trap, however the studies seem to show that for most of us this is not the case. Humans are wired to conform to the group, and follow authority figures, which the Milgram experiment showed can cause us to commit violent acts that we would otherwise never think to, with the right pressure of a person in authority.
I think that Milgram’s experiment does a good job of explaining a large part of people’s willingness to get swept up in mass movements, committing acts of violence in the process; blind obedience to an authority figure. His experiments proved that even the simple authority commanded by a lab coat was enough to coerce otherwise well intentioned people into committing violent acts against others. When instead of just a lab coat, this authority figure is a charasmatic celebrity, or the leader of a country, it is even easier to fall into this trap. Outside of the pressure of an authority figure, I think that people can become swept up in mass movements due to pressures of conformity to the group, the desire for radical change, and a weak self image, which leads people to seek out strong leaders, and a group which will accept them, so long as they are willing to follow.
I think that the “teachers” who were willing to disobey the authority figures of the “scientists” to harm the “learners” were people with strong senses of self, who likely felt that they were not the kind of people to harm others, leading to an inability to cognitively dissonate. People with weaker senses of self would likely be more able to cognitively dissonate as they would feel less conflicted about their actions. I think that prioritizing the importance of strong self identity in early education could help to produce more people who are willing to defy the authority figure in doing something they believe to be wrong. The only danger of this could potentially be over inflating some peoples ego, perhaps due to the fact that some with naturally/already strong senses of self worth could be having this message too heavily reinforced to them.
The greatest idea of this post, in my opinion, is the emphasis on how power affects people's willingness to do something they would normally consider immoral. I agree with the perspective that the milligram experiment demonstrates that obedience to power can dominate personal conscience past what you would expect yourself to do. What I find interesting about this idea is that you can take it out of the setting of a study and apply it to mass movements, charismatic leaders, and group dynamics like mob mentality. I also agree that having a strong self-identity as a shield against immoral conformity and blind obedience is a very good thing within society. I like that this shifts the focus from just perception and towards how education could protect individuals against harmful group ideologies, and indirectly protect everyone from being attacked by those converted into a mass movement. I wondered if the dynamic between self-identification and resistance to authority could be explored further, for example, could cultural norms or moral reasoning possibly be involved in facilitating a strong enough self-identity that it can resist all the pressures of societal coercion. I liked that, in contrast to other posts, this one goes further into Asch's conformity experiments differences with the Milligram experiment. It especially discussed the carrot and stick dynamic of authority and peer pressure, and how they both can work as a tool of coercion.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Response to Peer
Originally posted by
D5 Athlete on September 23, 2025 20:52
Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman once wrote that “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.” This observation presents us with something that most people don’t want to hear. The potential to be so cruel lies in ordinary people. The Milgram Experiment, conducted at Yale in the 1960s, shows how obedience and an authoritative figure can transform an individual into someone who would cause harm to someone else. When you look at this beside Joshua Barajas’s article How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, it shows that obedience is not just weakness but that in people's minds, they use it to not take responsibility. The Milgram Experiment suggests that almost everyone has the potential to harm others under the right conditions. In the study, many of the volunteers were willing to give the other person high voltage electricity shocks only because an authority figure told them to continue. The participants were not inherently violent (I assume) and they believed they were helping science. Yet when they were urged by the scientist, they continued to inflict pain despite all the shouts of the learner begging them to stop. This shows that human beings prioritize authority over what their own moral conscience is telling them to do, especially when an authority figure will take the responsibility. The article helps explain why this happens. Barajas uses research that shows when people act under orders, their sense of agency lessens and they feel less responsibility for their actions. As Patrick Hoggard notes, people experience their actions under authority as “passive movements” instead of voluntary choices. This mirrors the mindset of one of the Holocaust’s chief organizers, who claimed he was “forced to serve as a mere instrument.” While Haggard cautions that just following orders should not be a viable excuse, he says that feeling the effect of less responsibility can really happen to anyone. However, obedience to authority is not the only factor that explains why ordinary people participate in atrocities. Other influences such as fear of punishment, peer pressure, and prejudice. For example, in the Milgram experiment, many participants said they were uncomfortable but continued shocking the learner because they felt they had to. Quitting would have meant they failed the experimenter and disrupted the study. On a larger scale like genocide, people may fear imprisonment, job loss, or being ostracised if they resist. Propaganda is also used to make the victims seem like less than human, making the violence more justifiable. All this to say, obedience combines with other social pressures to create the conditions in which mass violence becomes possible.
I agree with the point that mass violence is made possible by the combination of obedience and social pressures but I do not think all people have this potential. There isn’t much opinion in this post; it is primarily restating the experiment or quotes. Overall the point that humans prioritize authority over moral consciousness is something I half agree with. We are raised into a society where authority is a big deal and we are always taught to obey someone higher up than us but it is not an inherent thing to do that. We can dissent, we can have other opinions, but I do think it depends on who the person is and how strong willed they are. They also mention other influences in one sentence but not any others. I think I have somewhat similar views to the person except I do not find these behaviors to be inherent traits. I think there isn’t much to analyze on the ideas being presented because the post is a lot of summary and that makes their overall point not very clear or new. Really all I understood is they think inherent obedience drives actions but I disagree.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 4
Originally posted by
believerchalkboardcomputer on September 23, 2025 19:09
While I don’t think it is someone’s natural response, I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others if they are pushed hard enough to do it. The Milgram experiment suggests that human behavior can be manipulated into willingly and knowingly committing acts that are against our better judgment or our moral compass. While some participants in the documentary were more questioning of what an authority figure tells them to do and hesitant to carry out the shockings, most people placed in a situation where they are confused or unsure of what to do will defer to the authority figure. This can be because having someone tell them what to do can make people feel better about a situation or what they are doing, especially in the Milgram experiment where a lot of the participants had no idea about how dangerous voltage can be so they trusted the scientist who they believed had more knowledge than them. It can also reduce the burden of the action on their conscience if the person is told to do something rather than doing it of their own will. Also, people have a tendency to want to appease those that they think have authority and fear the consequences of disobedience. I think that experiments like Milgram’s help explain part of how ordinary people can participate in mass atrocities, but it does not provide the whole answer. In Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, it says “The notion that we somehow automatically obey authority, that we are somehow programmed, doesn’t account for the variability [in rates of obedience] across conditions,” he said; in some iterations of Milgram’s study, the rate of compliance was close to 100 percent, while in others it was closer to zero. “We need an account that can explain the variability—when we obey, when we don’t”. This brings up the idea that some people are naturally more resistant to the influence of authority than others, which can be due to a whole range of reasons like their personal moral compass, past experiences or things like proximity to the victim. In the documentary we saw that when the learner was put in another room away from the teacher, the teacher was more likely to obey than when the teacher could see the learner and had to physically intervene with the learner to shock them. The environment also plays a large part in how obedient people are as well. In the article The Real Lesson from the Stanford Prison Experiment, it talks about how some of the participants who were given the role of guard felt they had to act tougher for the experiment. The way the authority figure gives the instructions can also influence how people will react. If the order is given in a reserved and monotone fashion, then it can cause a person to feel more at ease and willing if the authority figure is calm. In order to create a society that values and encourages the traits that encourage disobedience to unethical behavior we would need to teach and encourage critical thinking in everybody so that when people can think about the implications of the actions they are doing.
I think the most compelling idea proposed in this response is that people have the capability to be a perpetrator of violence when forced enough to do it. Believerchalkboardcomputer also elaborates that on one hand people conform to voices of authority when confused, but on the other hand the Milgram experiments do not account for all people. There is a certain variability in which people obey and do not obey. It ultimately comes down to the environment in which that person resides. I strongly agree with this perspective because I do think that people naturally conform to those in times of distress or confusion. However, I believe each of us have our own moral beliefs and values. I think that certain people tend to perform better in situations of distress and the Milgram experiments do not account for those types of people. I also agree that a calm manner when giving orders further contribute to our natural tendency to conform to their orders. This idea is similar to PeanutButterBoy who highlights how the Milgram experiments show the inherent flaws in the general human being. They both elaborated on how under certain circumstances, anybody has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence. In a way the atrocious acts headed by Adolf Eichmann show the complex nature of human regularity. I think that is something that Believerchalkboardcomputer could expand on. The idea that polarized figures can ultimately be reduced to regular human beings placed under certain circumstances who commited atrocious actions. Ultimately, this connects to my own views because I think that human beings are extremely complex. The regularity in the general population tend to gets overlooked which is why such polarizing figures like Hitler suddenly rose to power. It is so easy to overlook such people, which is why they appel so much to the general crowd.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
Response
Originally posted by
BrokenTile on September 23, 2025 02:28
I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others when in fear of authority or as part of a mass movement, and not feeling responsible for their actions. For example, Adolf Eichmann argued that he was just a cog in the machine and was “just following orders”. Having the attitude that you’re not responsible and doing what the authority is telling you to do shifts blame off of yourself and makes you go: it wasn’t my fault, it was (insert authority figure)’s fault. The Milgram experiments suggest that when pressured by an authority figure, people might question what they’re doing, but a percentage of people will go through with it, while others might stop. If people were held more accountable, they might reconsider their actions, and to what degree they act on their violent ideas.
I think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. As mentioned before in the course certain cults, like the Jonestown cult, or the Manson family. Other factors that might play a role in participation of violence and atrocities would be a sense of belonging in a group, or meaning. Or the “us vs them dynamic”, and polarization in society. There’s also a very small percentage of people who might be characterized as sociopaths who genuinely feel no remorse, the David Cash guy shown in class, but in the Stanford Prison experiment it showed that even with the brightest minds, when given power over others, could become tyrannical. Although this could be skewed due to people seeking power over others as a guard and how the researchers framed the Stanford Prison experiment to their subjects.
Some of the important factors and personality traits that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the learner would be having actual concern for the learner and being willing to disobey the authority figure and give up the money paid in the experiment. While you can try to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, I think you’ll run into the problem of people questioning authority that might not be considered unethical. For instance, recent public assassinations of the UnitedHealth Care CEO and Charlie Kirk. If we give too much freedom to question authority, you have anarchy, and anarchy leads to chaos. We still need some semblance of order in our society, especially with these increasingly polarizing times. But these experiments should be taken with a grain of salt, because these people know that they are participating in an experiment. If it were the real world and there was a strong authority figure that you had to obey, I have a feeling most people wouldn’t rebel due to fear for themselves and a desire for self-preservation. I believe that there is a major difference between situations where it is easy to disobey because it doesn’t threaten you personally, but if it did, you might see less people willing to disobey.
I agree with your thoughts. I believe that everyone has the potential to commit violent acts against another person. I liked how you used Adolf Eichmann as an example to show that people will act in terrible ways and justify it by saying, “I was just following orders”. After watching the Milgram experiment video, a lot of people have shifted their views and believe that everyone has the potential to become violent. I like how you incorporated examples of groupthink mentality/people controlled by a leader with the cult example. I also agree with your thoughts about the Sanford prison experiment. I never thought about it in the way that these highly educated people would treat other humans in that way; it really goes to show that anyone can become violent. I also think that the experiment does have some flaws. I partially agree with your opinions about the freedom to question authority and that too much of it can lead to chaos. I don’t know if those 2 killings were due to questioning authority, but rather a result of personal grievances. I think it depends on how you look at them. I appreciated how you incorporated modern references to demonstrate that Milgram’s theories and experiments remain applicable today.
BOSTON, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 5
Response
Originally posted by
BrokenTile on September 23, 2025 02:28
I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others when in fear of authority or as part of a mass movement, and not feeling responsible for their actions. For example, Adolf Eichmann argued that he was just a cog in the machine and was “just following orders”. Having the attitude that you’re not responsible and doing what the authority is telling you to do shifts blame off of yourself and makes you go: it wasn’t my fault, it was (insert authority figure)’s fault. The Milgram experiments suggest that when pressured by an authority figure, people might question what they’re doing, but a percentage of people will go through with it, while others might stop. If people were held more accountable, they might reconsider their actions, and to what degree they act on their violent ideas.
I think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. As mentioned before in the course certain cults, like the Jonestown cult, or the Manson family. Other factors that might play a role in participation of violence and atrocities would be a sense of belonging in a group, or meaning. Or the “us vs them dynamic”, and polarization in society. There’s also a very small percentage of people who might be characterized as sociopaths who genuinely feel no remorse, the David Cash guy shown in class, but in the Stanford Prison experiment it showed that even with the brightest minds, when given power over others, could become tyrannical. Although this could be skewed due to people seeking power over others as a guard and how the researchers framed the Stanford Prison experiment to their subjects.
Some of the important factors and personality traits that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the learner would be having actual concern for the learner and being willing to disobey the authority figure and give up the money paid in the experiment. While you can try to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, I think you’ll run into the problem of people questioning authority that might not be considered unethical. For instance, recent public assassinations of the UnitedHealth Care CEO and Charlie Kirk. If we give too much freedom to question authority, you have anarchy, and anarchy leads to chaos. We still need some semblance of order in our society, especially with these increasingly polarizing times. But these experiments should be taken with a grain of salt, because these people know that they are participating in an experiment. If it were the real world and there was a strong authority figure that you had to obey, I have a feeling most people wouldn’t rebel due to fear for themselves and a desire for self-preservation. I believe that there is a major difference between situations where it is easy to disobey because it doesn’t threaten you personally, but if it did, you might see less people willing to disobey.
Post your response here. I agree with your thoughts. I believe that everyone has the potential to commit violent acts against another person. I liked how you used Adolf Eichmann as an example to show that people will act in terrible ways and justify it by saying, “I was just following orders”. After watching the Milgram experiment video, a lot of people have shifted their views and believe that everyone has the potential to become violent. I like how you incorporated examples of groupthink mentality/people controlled by a leader with the cult example. I also agree with your thoughts about the Sanford prison experiment. I never thought about it in the way that these highly educated people would treat other humans in that way; it really goes to show that anyone can become violent. I also think that the experiment does have some flaws. I partially agree with your opinions about the freedom to question authority and that too much of it can lead to chaos. I don’t know if those 2 killings were due to questioning authority, but rather a result of personal grievances. I think it depends on how you look at them. I appreciated how you incorporated modern references to demonstrate that Milgram’s theories and experiments remain applicable today.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 3
Originally posted by
bunnyenthusiast123 on September 21, 2025 16:48
Being a perpetrator of violence against others is not an inherent trait of people. I do think people can be convinced to commit violent acts if they think they are doing something in the name of good but I do think some with strong moral conscience are exempt from this influence. The Milgram experiment shows how under authority we commit acts against our morals because we feel like we must listen. I think overall respect for authority is over emphasized in our society and we are raised our whole lives having to listen to others; our parents, teachers, bosses, anyone above us. It is not something we know how to break out of or stand up against. So when we are told others did something wrong we believe they are more deserving of what punishment they will receive. The Milgram experiment includes this as the teacher justifies the shocks they are delivering as earned for getting the question wrong. Similarly shown in the Stanford Prison experiment, the guards think the people who are going against the rules are criminals who have done bad things so therefore their punishments are also deserved as they are bad people. So both experiments do show people in power think violence is okay when it feels warranted for the most part due to the fact we are taught to obey authority. One quote I found interesting pertaining to this is from the last article about the Stanford Prison Experiment which is “The lesson of Stanford isn’t that any random human being is capable of descending into sadism and tyranny. It’s that certain institutions and environments demand those behaviors—and, perhaps, can change them.” We aren’t inherently able to commit bad actions however we are born into a society that teaches us we must obey all authority and either you fall into the safety of protection from authority or you are outcast for speaking against bad.
I do think Milgram’s experiment explains why people commit these atrocities but not how our system fails us by forcing us into a position where we must participate. It is not people doing bad things because they think it is okay in that situation but rather higher systems of authority teach us we must obey no matter what. People will do whatever they can justify is the main source of these actions. I think teachers who did not proceed to punish the learner despite the experimenter’s commands have a better sense of self and stronger moral compass. When you possess critical thinking skills you are better at determining safety and when to get involved and argue back. We need to as a society work on bettering ourselves as people, finding our own opinions, and deciding what is right. This doesn’t abolish all violence as some leaders with bad ideals will still exist however in general we prevent more bad if we allow more sense of self. We can not continue to allow ourselves to be controlled so strongly if we want to prevent violence.
I agreed with the point that people are not naturally inclined to commit violent acts against others, and that instead, certain situations can demand those actions, and the values which society emphasizes can push people to make these choices. I think it was a really good point to differentiate people being naturally capable of committing violent acts and people being influenced by certain situations and societal values to eventually commit these sort of actions, with the latter being argued as the reality. Some other posts touched on the fact that the values which society often emphasizes such as obedience to teachers, bosses, etc. can influence people’s willingness to blindly follow authority figures in committing violent acts. In my own post I argued that humans are naturally able to be coerced into committing violent acts against others under the pressure of an authority figure, however I think this post captures that idea a little better. I agree with this post a lot on the argument that people are not usually naturally willing to commit violent acts against others, but that under the exact right conditions; pressure of an authority figure, a given reason, and the desire to fit in, people can be coerced into these actions, which otherwise go against their beliefs and values.
Boston , Massachusetts , US
Posts: 3
Originally posted by
DiaryoftheSillyKid on September 23, 2025 07:14
While Milgram's experiments may seem “extreme” to some people, they show how the human mind reacts in multiple scenarios. For example, in the experiment we watched in class, the act of shocking a person with heart problems with dangerous amounts of electricity is very intense, but it shows how the brain reacts to serious situations while also listening to the directions of a higher authority. The Milgram experiment exposes that with a stroke of authority over hearing and observing others' actions, we as humans can become perpetrators of violence against others. The human mind often goes against personal morals and empathy for another individual when a higher power instructs it to do otherwise. This can happen for several reasons, like lack of information, trust in a higher authority, etc., but these things are not necessarily able to go against the mind's “instinct” to do what's right. During the video, when each participant reaches a certain point in the experiment, typically when a dangerous amount of electricity is being applied to the other individuals, they begin to question the reality of the experiment, and provide excuses to stop it. This demonstrates humans' basic instinct of morality and empathy toward themselves and other humans, but when a higher authority, such as the scientist in this instance, continues to harm others, most likely because of their vague knowledge of the experiment and the extremity of the experiment, it allows the brain to go against its instincts.
Milgram's experiment helps people understand the human brain better, in terms of participation in violence or mass genocide. Milgram's experiment goes hand in hand with the idea of “mob mentality,” even when there isn't much of a mob in this experiment. This explains the idea where people feel isolated and are not willing to complete an action because the “correct” side is saying to do otherwise. In the experiment, there is no “group” necessarily, a higher authority, where the teacher goes against their own judgment of the situation and follows the orders of the scientist. This experiment shows that people feel the need to follow the orders of an authority figure when they lack information about the situation, making it easier for leaders, like Hitler or Stalin, to “control” a group of people to the “right” objective. Moreover, I believe that people could enjoy inflicting pain on others, but most people do it in fear of punishment from a higher authority. In society, we call these people sociopaths, where an individual enjoys or has no reaction to seriously gruesome activity, especially when pain is inflicted on another person or even themselves. Something that leads to this is when people start to dehumanize other humans, making them seem like objects rather than human beings. When a group or individual is seen as less than human, it becomes easier to justify violence against them. Propaganda in war times and mass genocide movements are a way to dehumanize people, making pain towards them “justifiable”. This is similar to Maria Korrinkova’s point in The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment that “any random human being is capable of descending into sadism and tyranny. It’s that certain institutions and environments demand those behaviors—and, perhaps, can change them.” Some things that may have affected the participant’s ability to to disobey in the experiment is the fact that the scientist was in very close contact with the learner. If the participant was in another room than the scientist, it would be easier to refrain from shocking the other person because there would be less of an obligation to do so, and repercussions against the teacher are less likely. Another thing was the relationship between the two participants. Usually, the teacher starts to develop a relationship with the learner based on pure empathy. The teacher would commonly ask if the learner was alright to continue the experiment because they did not like the feeling of inflicting pain on the learner. Moreover, I believe that it would be hard to create these societies where people go against these types of authority figures, but in history, people have done so, leading to different reformation acts like Women's suffrage and the Civil Rights movement. With all this said, I leave my classmates to think, what societal changes could be made to stop people from hesitating to the pressures of unethical authority figures?
I think that the most compelling thing about this post is how you mentioned examples like war and people being deemed as sociopaths in society. I also think it was sorta unique that you ended off your statement with a question for us readers. This was a very captivating way to reel the readers in, and kind of stimulate their thinking a bit more. In the end, I do agree with your overall idea being how the Milgram experiment plays a big part in showing us how the human mind reacts to multiple scenarios. This idea is interesting because of the experiment showing how we too are perpetrators of violence against others. Like you said, “humans' basic instinct of morality and empathy toward themselves and other humans, but when a higher authority, such as the scientist in this instance, continues to harm others”. This signifies how many try to conform to the person they believe is more knowledgeable and of higher authority than them. I think that both our views on the topic are similar. We both state how some of the teachers are not correcting the learner, just because they believe that they are superior. For example in my post I stated, “the Milgram experiments suggest that people usually have the tendency to obey higher placed people. They do this because they believe that since certain people have a sense of authority that those people are always in the right, because they are smarter.” This is very similar to your statement, both sharing that we believe how this experiment has affected the minds of the teacher to believe that they have no self power or control over themselves, and instead decides to listen to the learner just because they believe that they are superior to them.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Originally posted by
BuzzBrdy on September 23, 2025 18:53
I do think that experiments such as the Milgram’s explain the reason why ordinary people’s participation in violence due to the fear of breaking rules. People tend to be unsympathetic when it benefits them or even simply when they want to be. The Milgram experiment revolves around a teacher choosing the pain levels to inflict on a student when they get an answer to a question wrong. As the pain increases,the student begs to stop the experiment. The experiment questions the idea of conformity, and if the teacher will stop the experiment or continue it based on the scientist’s demands. When people break rules, they may associate it with punishment for themselves which leads them to conformity, listening to and fulfilling every command. I believe that if there wasn’t a scientist forcing the experiment, the teachers would stop. The teachers saw the scientist as the one responsible, and decided to comply with the orders as it shifts the blame off of them. As seen by this quote “In other words, people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas), it doesn’t matter if you are the one inflicting pain, but it is the teacher’s fault. If they were to bring in a teacher that is not afraid of breaking rules, they stopped the experiment immediately as seen with the first teacher. Another barrier to showing empathy and stopping the experiment was seeing the student. When a teacher physically sees the student’s pain, they are more likely to stop the experiment than if they were not able to see. This is similar to what we learned about in Nazi Germany, where they used gas chambers as the Nazis wouldn’t be able to see the death they caused. I believe that any moral compass is turned off this way, and they had a reason to justify their actions as they were just following orders. Reduced responsibility gives people a reason to commit atrocities, and they see themselves as just the person doing it. Shifting the blame onto another person gives people the idea that the person asking them to do it should be held more accountable for any outcomes that end badly. Along with following authority blindly, I believe another reason that people willingly inflict pain on others is because of desensitization. When people are constantly confronted with violence, their tolerance can gradually increase. What starts off as small acts of violence can quickly become larger as it is more normalized. This is illustrated in the Milgram experiment as the shocks start off as light. As the student continues to get questions wrong, the pain increases until they can no longer handle it. In addition to this, the repeated action of violence numbs the teacher, who cares less and less. As they continue to inflict harm, there becomes less shock and the individual may start to feel detached, disregarding it as a virtuous choice. Ultimately, the experiment shows us how authority and desensitization work together to explain how atrocities are justified in the eyes of the perpetrator.
This post does a very good job explaining how the Milgram experiment shows people following orders, even if it means hurting others. I agree fully with the idea about how people shift blame to authority figures so they don't feel guilty for their actions. I also brought up in my post how this goes back to the Holocaust where people "were just following orders" to excuse the cruel things they did. I found it really interesting how you connected the experiment to desensitization. You mentioned how violence becomes larger as it is normalized and this is so true as it can even connect to society today where people see horrible things on social media or in the world and yet ignore them because of how much we are used to it. I think you covered all the main points except for the fact that not everyone obeyed the authority figure and some refused to go all the way with the experiment. Something you could've done better was breaking up a couple of the longer sentences to really get your point across. Overall I really enjoyed this read and thought it was well organized and made me think about this experiment and the power authority holds today and in our history.
