Hyde Park, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
The Milgram Experiment and Obedience
No one is excluded from potentially becoming subject to Groupthink, Mob Mentality, or Obedience theory. These three theories have been known to cause humans to let go of their morals and sometimes even their concept of self (values) for the purpose of pleasing authority, fitting in, and more. I think in a way that makes all humans susceptible to committing violence against others, even if that wasn’t their intention. Milgram’s experiment is a perfect example of this. When the teachers were conducting the electric shocks and could hear the screams of some of the students, they still continued and in real life would’ve inflicted pain onto those individuals. You could see how some teachers also seeked guidance from authority when hearing the screams of those being tested showing how it morally did not feel right to them. However, they still continued to shock those in the test because we as humans have been taught to obey authority figures no matter the situation.
People’s participation in violence such as genocide and mass atrocities is partially explained by Millgram’s experiment. Milgram’s experiment demonstrated how it is a primal instinct to obey authority. At the same time, today we are conditioned by routines like school and work to follow the elites' rules and we follow them because of this underlying feeling we’re being surveyed. I think we subconsciously may have a feeling that what we are doing is ultimately bad, but we continue to do such things because of our fear of what happens when we don’t listen. We also believe that since authority figures are directing us we technically played no part in any of the harm that is caused to others. In a way, I think this idea is increased even more when one is behind a screen.
I think one personality trait that allows teachers to disobey the authorities’ orders is a strong sense of empathy for others and an unwavering mental autonomy, thinking for yourself. After one of the teachers had heard the painful scream of the person within the experiment he immediately started to question the authorities. He couldn’t ignore the scream of the individual because he cared about the experimented person's cry for help or maybe he didn’t want to be held accountable for anything that occurred. Either way, he was able to work up enough confidence to tell the guard that this wasn’t right, and then it took even more guts and critical thinking for the teacher to say he wouldn’t continue with the experiment even after the guard had directed the teacher to continue.
I do think our society should foster the idea of rebellion over tyranny and unethical behavior. However, our society needs to be careful that we don’t foster rebellion for the simple purpose of disobeying. We need our society to work as one and for that to happen there can’t be constant rebelling over laws that are made to protect the general public. I think one of the best ways to foster a healthy trait of rebellion would be to make humanities/psychology classes mandatory for every school from sophomore to senior year - almost like a middle school sexual ED class. This time the school will be educating children about human behavior, so that the reflective and self aware part of one's brain could start developing. I think providing students with this knowledge gives them the freedom and skills on how to act as a more thoughtful adult as well. The second article “How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind” also discusses how a flip switches within the brain when one acts under orders. The brain's activity becomes dampened and one stops thinking for themselves. Overall, this supports my idea of increasing education upon topics like this, so your brain may eventually develop new strategies against situations like these.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on Milgram Experiment Peer Feedback
Originally posted by
thesismachine on September 23, 2024 21:43
I believe the Milgram experiment shows some factors that influence people to participate in violence. I propose three main factors that may explain why the ‘teachers’ kept shocking the ‘learners’: physical and emotional separation between the person and the victim, a perceived punishment for disobedience or reward for obedience, and the placement of responsibility. These factors can also be used to explain why atrocities happen since many of them include these factors, showing how significant and prevalent they are. For example, the Nazis were not Jewish, they were paid or rewarded for their service, and many of them claimed that they were “following orders”. These factors work together to ‘incentivize’ violence.
It is easy for people to harm others who are unfamiliar to them, especially if they are considered enemies by other people. It is easy for people to create stereotypes of others, to accuse them of things they haven’t done, or to believe false statements about them. It is important for us to know the view of the other party because it allows us to do away with those stereotypes and accusations and understand how other people truly affect us. However, the Milgram experiments show that even this isn’t enough. Even when the ‘teachers’ knew that the ‘learners’ were in audible pain and wanted to leave, many of them continued. This brings empathy into question, but the experiments show that even empathy isn’t enough to stop them.
I believe that the ‘teachers’ in the experiments felt that they would be punished if they didn’t comply with the orders of the ‘experimenter’. Many of the ‘teachers’ continued to shock the ‘learners’ even after they said they wanted to leave because of the pressure put on them by the ‘experimenter’. Later interpretations of Milgram’s work explain that “those who successfully ended the experiment early were simply better at resisting than the ones that continued shocking” (Carl Romm, 2015), showing that people’s ability to resist persuasion, or possibly the pressure of a perceived punishment, also affects their willingness to continue.
In the article How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind, people lose their sense of agency, or their personal responsibility for their actions, when they are following orders. This is also a factor of the ‘teachers’ actions in the Milgram experiment; the ‘teacher’ felt that the ‘experimenter’ was really the one that was hurting the ‘learner’, and that they were simply carrying out the ‘experimenter’s orders because of how disillusioned they were from their actions.
Ultimately, these factors contribute to a conflict that everyone faces. Many people don’t want to harm others because they view themselves as ‘good’, but they become conflicted when they do something or are told to do something ‘bad’. People feel ‘good’ in the sense that they are following authority, but they also feel ‘bad’ because they are doing ‘bad’ actions. The factors try to explain why people choose to do ‘bad’ actions even when they want to be ‘good’. Ultimately, I believe that people who are able to show more empathy to the harmed, who are able to resist persuasion, and who can understand their actions can stand up to authority.
I strongly agree with your three main factors that explain why the “teachers” continued to shock the “learners” despite knowing that they were inflicting harm. These factors ultimately develop due to the hindered brain activity when an individual is under orders. This would cause a lack of agency towards their actions and a perceived shift in responsibility. This phenomenon seems to also reduce empathy in the process, as they feel as though the “experimenter” is truly responsible for these actions. I think it's very interesting how you brought up how people feel “bad” because they are doing “bad” actions, despite thinking themselves a “good person”. With cognitive dissonance, people with higher self-esteem tend to experience more dissonance, while those with lower levels tend to experience less dissonance, leading them to continue to do harmful actions. In the Milgram Experiment, people justified their actions by blaming it on the experimenter to rid the dissonance they experienced for hurting the “learner”. I do not particularly agree with your point on how the “teachers” may have been influenced by a possible punishment. I feel as though your points in regard to pressure in obeying orders and shifting the blame to the experimenter are stronger. Overall, I strongly agree with your ideas on the Milgram Experiment and found this to be an in-depth reflection.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
The Milgram Experiment and Obedience
Milgram suggests that every person has the potential to be cruel and violent when provoked. I agree with this, but the rate at which it occurs should be questioned. Some people are more susceptible to giving in to unethical behavior than others. For example, when prompted to continue with causing harm to another person, people become more likely to do so, than if there is no one asking them to continue these behaviors. In the documentary of the Milgram experiment, it becomes clear that among participants that continued the experiment to 450 volts, there was still a variety of reactions and the amount of time the experiment took also varied. Regarding Bauman’s quote, participants’ reactions to their own actions, once debriefed, often included intense justifications to indicate to themselves that they weren’t the worst, or they weren’t the one actually pushing for the violence to occur, even if they were inflicting the violence themselves.
With this, demonstrated praise or approval for the infliction of violence caused people to continue more willingly, because they felt that they were doing something right, even if their conscience said otherwise. Likewise, if people are aware that others are committing the same atrocious acts, they are more likely to do the same, because they do not want to be recognized as the odd one out. As mentioned in Barajas’ article, people feel less autonomy over their actions when the person giving them orders is watching. This application to obedience in mass movements, such as in the Nazi Party’s defense, is minor, but a psychologically proven claim. Despite the significance of this finding, the actual results did not change much, but reaction time did. The question, then, is, if leaders in the Nazi Party had not been closely watching their inferiors, would these people have committed these heinous acts, or would the atrocities have been stopped at a certain point?
Naturally humans have a tendency to protect or, at least, avoid harming people they know or have met before, and even those whose names they know. The act of giving someone a name allows people to feel more empathy toward them, and feel less compelled to cause that person harm. This idea is evident in the Holocaust because prisoners were given numbers, which, in turn, dehumanized them. This allowed guards and perpetrators to cause harm without feeling extreme remorse or distress. Dehumanization can be seen in other mass movements, even ones we consider positive. The idea is that the mass is one, and so each person does not exist as an individual, but rather as a part of a larger group. This leads to generalizations of entire groups which can be extremely harmful. Once someone steps out of line from the ways of the group, their identity returns, and so, they become more human. Ideally, those who oppose unethical leaders would be praised, but there is danger in them becoming idolized. When idolization occurs, there is a loop back to mass movements which encourage people to act against their own ethics and morals.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on Obedience and the Milgram Experiment
I do think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others just because of other factors that can cloud or alter someone’s judgment such as past traumas or even certain factors that may be present in the moment. In the Milgram experiments, we saw that the teachers were more willing to inflict pain on the learners which was because they were being told to do so by a higher authority. This implies that people are more likely to harm others when they are not the authority figure because they feel much less responsible for any consequences of their actions. This provides just one explanation for the atrocities that took place during the Holocaust, and why nazi’s didn’t feel so guilty for the deaths of millions of Jews. In “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, Barajas explains how Adolf Eichmann, organizer of the Holocaust, was able to shift blame from himself, and other officers of lower ranking, to their superiors. He claimed that they, “were ‘forced to serve as mere instruments’” (Barajas 1), and implies he was not to blame for his own voluntary actions. One man in the Milgram experiment claimed that he wanted to stop shocking the learner, however the experimenter “wouldn’t let him.” This indicates that the experimenter must have been using some form of physical force that made the man continue, when in reality the teacher had free will and the choice to leave at any given moment. When someone is given an order, their action feels a lot less voluntary, and more like they were tricked or forced into doing something. I think this provides an explanation for ordinary people’s active participation in violence because this theory doesn’t only apply to big acts of violence or mass genocides, it can be as simple as a teacher or guardian asking you to do something wrong. This is similar to the video we watched in class about how people are more willing to not conform to society when there is at least one other nonconformer, because they don’t feel individually singled out and feel less alone. People don’t want to hold responsibility, especially not alone, so it’s a lot easier when you’re told you’re not being held accountable.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 2
The Milgram Experiment Reflection
I believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others through many circumstances in their lives. The Milgram experiments portray the aspects of people's behavior through their constant willingness to ignore others' suffering and listen to their leader. It describes the idea that leaders can use people as pawns for their unrighteous acts, Such as Hitler leading the Nazis. In the Article How Nazi’s defense of “just following orders” plays out in the mind, written by Joshua Barajas, a senior editor for PBS News in 2016, states how people saw their actions in the Milgram experiments as “passive movements rather than fully voluntary actions” while following orders. These ideas directly correlate to Hitler and his rule due to the fact that many soldiers felt disconnected from their actions as a result of taking orders, as mentioned in the article.
The experiments show the impact of group dynamics and social pressures that have been placed on human behavior. As the teachers were told to keep going and that all liabilities would be on the experimenter, the normalization of this behavior created a sense of shared responsibility that diminished individual accountability. This suggests that when individuals are placed in situations where they see others complying with harmful actions, or they know there isn’t any responsibility on them, they may feel compelled to keep going to avoid standing out or being perceived as disobedient.
Another aspect illustrated by the experiments is the role of being in compliance with harmful actions. The controlled environment of the lab created a physical and mental distance between the participants and the suffering of the learner. By making it so the teacher could not see the person and their emotions, participants could detach emotionally from their actions, making it easier for them to rationalize their behavior as part of an experiment rather than a personal choice. This detachment connects to the example of Adolf Hitler and his actions. He tries to justify these harmful actions to his allies by detaching them from the Jewish people. Putting them in Gas chambers where you cannot see or hear them being tortured. Hitler's army and allies were physically and emotionally detached from them, making it easier for them to justify their actions. This proves that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence as long as there is a limiting factor that helps the perpetrator justify themselves.
In addition to authority, physical and mental factors, and social pressures, the Milgram experiments highlight the significance of cognitive dissonance in justifying harmful behavior. Participants often experienced a conflict between their moral beliefs and the actions they were being asked to perform, causing discomfort. To resolve this dissonance, many people shift their perceptions, convincing themselves that their role was important for science or that the learner was less hurt than he seemed. This psychological warfare allowed them to rationalize their participation in the creation of pain, emphasizing how individuals can distort their understanding of morality to align with their actions. The findings suggest that when people are placed in high-pressure situations where they must choose between their beliefs and compliance, they may prioritize compliance, further revealing that any one person can become a perpetrator of violence against their peers.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on the Milgram Experiment
Could the participants of the Milgram experiment become Nazis or perpetrate genocide, or does the experiment serve as an explanation for Nazis instead? I don’t think either is completely true. As interesting as the experiment was, I definitely feel as though it is an inaccurate representation of the average person’s active participation in mass atrocities and genocide. There is a massive difference between the flipping a switch and being conscious of the pain of the person on the other side versus actively and KNOWINGLY participating in morally reprehensible acts such as rape, torture and murder. The final flip of the switch that “killed” the learner was, ultimately, unintentional. This wasn’t the fervent murder of a person, and wouldn’t be tried as such in court. You could argue depraved heart murder or criminal negligence, but they can claim an ignorance to the consequences of their actions which Nazis can not. Not to say that they could never be, but as of the experiment they weren’t in any way depraved. There is also the fact that all of the participants in the experiment were white (presumably straight) men. They were not a part of the any visible “out-group” to the teachers and this probably gained them a kinship and empathy that members of a different out group would not (consider that this experiment took place in a segregated America: What would the results have been if people of color were included?). While this seems to suggest that the Holocaust, perpetrated by Nazis onto members of their most despised “out-groups” is plausibly perpetrated by the members of the experiment, MANY of the Jewish people, gay men and Roma were women and children, of which the social taboo was (and is) to in any way harm them. We condemn violence against children more than I would argue any crime in existence, and it is often prosecuted as such. Children are often used in political propaganda and media as the paragon of innocence, and considering how violent reactions to harming children are, I find it difficult to believe that the men shown in the video could do that. When comparing the participants in the Milgram experiment to ordinary people in the Holocaust who did terrible things, one must consider that the people weren’t exactly ordinary. This isn’t to say that they were strange and completely out of common social norms in Germany at the time, but that normalcy is an adjective that fluctuates with actions of the collective you compare it to. They might have been “ordinary” but ordinary people aren’t constantly bombarded with anti-semetic propaganda or idealistic Aryan posters. “Ordinary” people aren’t in the middle of a war that their whole country supports due to the charismatic speeches of a crazed political leader, “ordinary” people wouldn’t send their children to Hitler Youth hoping to instill nationalism and pride in their country. As Miller points out in Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments, ““If you put us in certain situations, we’re more likely to be racist or sexist, or we may lie, or we may cheat.”. It has everything to do with the situation or which authority is only a small portion of. It has been roughly 80 years and much has changed but even at the time, that wasn’t “normal”. That is ultimately why I don’t think it is fair to say that the obedience theory “caused” the Holocaust, although it was a cause. The factors that go into a tragedy like the Holocaust are sadly probably not entirely unreplicable but are very specific and unique. Think about how the perpetrators of the Holocaust 1) had been listening to propaganda for years 2) Were (often) under orders 3) Were committing violence against minorities that they had long had political tension with 4) Were part of a larger group and political ideology 5) Were committing violence against people they often didn’t identify with and labeled as an “out-group” (and these are just the factors I could come up with at the top of my head, please comment if you can think of more). The only overlap in the experiment and the Holocuast was number two, and to argue that because the participants conceded to a single factor of a much, much larger issue that they, or even people on the street, could be capable of genocide of other atrocities is, I feel, a gross misrepresentation. “Ordinary” people have committed atrocities, but it goes far beyond a lever to be switched on and off.
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Reflections on obedience and the Milgran Experiment
Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. May it be people who already are considered violent to those who are considered passive. Under certain conditions everyone can be this perpetrator, but most of the time it is not on purpose. Most people who become perpetrator of violence in mass movements such as the Nazis are not how people thought or viewed themselves. This is because the goal of the Nazis was not the same throughout the whole time and gradually but surely people kept following and following. Once people starting following a leader they get put into a group of others who follow the same person. When you starting doing tasks with these people the unconscious bond that is formed within this in-group make it hard for people to leave once in. That is because of the fear of being outcasted. Especially in big movements such as the Nazis once your in the in group the out group views you extremely negative as they dislike your position but if you try switching you will most likely not get be accept by those people either and even if you do, the fear of being outcasted by both groups creates a situation where you have to stay in. In Milgrams original experiment, where the teacher shocks the learner for every mistake, the voltage went up to 450 which is lethal but yet because they kept pressing the switch it made it harder for them to completely stop even after they started disagreeing with the actions occurring. In a similar experiment where the voltage only went to a painful but not lethal 140 the same data was collected. This simply shows that the 310 voltage difference is negligible. Once hooked in people tend to stay in regardless of their behavior, and with this process this allows everyone and anyone to become a perpetrator of violence. Moreover, even though anyone can become a perpetrator of violence, not everyone does. This is because of differences in personalities and the biggest difference would be a high self esteem and high moral integrity. People with high self esteem and morality have no reason to follow these mass movements as they do not need the validation that comes from it or if they do join, they have no reason to stay in once they disagree because of the difference in morality. So in the Milgram experiment if one has a high morality they will realize that they do not need to do this and that they don’t have to and stop. As a overall society we can duplicate this and we can see examples in todays worlds. It is not unfair to say that people have higher morals today than they did back in the early 1900’s and further. In todays world someone who, even in the slightest, supports Hitler’s idea is immediately shut down and that is because as a society with high moral we recognize how that is inexcusable. Since we all recognize this there is no chance for any similar movement to happen as those would also be recognized as inexcusable and not allowed to happen. With this idea of high morals we are able to simply stop mass movements that haven’t even started yet. This high morals paired with the technology to be able to spread opinions makes it even harder to start negative mass movements. If even one person disagrees with a negative idea and posts it, tens of millions of people see this post and even if a fraction agree with it that’s more people on the better side of the issue. With continuous reposting and sharing this side is shown more and more and eventually the majority is completely different than before. However, back then there was no way to “safely” share an opposing idea so everyone was under the impression everyone was okay with the movement and was forced to move with it
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 1
Reflection on the Milgram Experiment
I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, because at the end of the day we care about ourselves. While there are certainly some incredibly selfless individuals, when faced with the risk of losing a job in a low-income household or the fear of personal harm, most people will comply with authority. Now does that make you selfish, or an awful person since you are inflicting pain on others? I believe that this question is definitely situational, because as I said there are many cases where the person who commits an act of violence only does so because they are protecting themselves from potential harm. This idea was also noted in Rethinking One of Psychology's Most infamous experiments when Miller states “In the minds of a lot of people, it tends to excuse bad behavior … it’s not the person’s fault for doing the bad thing, it’s the situation they were put in.” Just because someone acts badly, doesn’t mean they're a bad person as long as they still have remorse; however, it is hard to confirm that as an answer and not as a mere excuse. However, it is a different story if you are complicit in an environment where you have complete free will. For example, the Milgram experiment. I understand going on with the shocks a few times after hearing the learners yell, but after multiple pain filled screeches it is obvious that the person getting shocked is in severe pain. In one case he was even knocked unconscious and they continued the shocking. Luckily it was a planned experiment, but if it wasn’t one option was that the learner could’ve been dead and continued getting shocked. I think it is completely immoral to continue such an act, because the people in charge of shocking were all appeared to be at least somewhat educated and adult men who could have stood us up for themselves, and the learner. Although this is a smaller scale experiment, it is definitely related to actual atrocities and genocides, because sometimes you don’t realize what you’re getting yourself into. None of those men even thought that the experiment they signed up for included possibly killing someone, but it ended up being just that. Once you start an experiment, it is easy to fall under the pressure or get brainwashed, and continue on because you don’t know what else to do. Besides feeling pressured, it is also possible to get an adrenaline rush from obtaining so much power, like an addiction. Feeling secure and in control is something that is really hard to let go of, and can sometimes blind people's perception of right from wrong. In the end, whether it be fear or consequences, persuasion, pressure, or just gaining a liking to inflicting pain, I think it would be nearly impossible to train a human being to completely disobey authority during an unethical situation. This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a bad person because some leaders are very manipulative and can hide their destruction until it's too late, making it very hard for the person to notice the faults in their actions. However, it doesn’t mean their actions are always excused either. All in all, it is also impossible to create a morality chart that is agreed on throughout the world, or even a country, so a lot of these questions will remain unanswered theories.
Boston, Massachusetts , US
Posts: 2
Reflections on the Milgram Experiment
I think everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. Some people may refuse to be a perpetrator of violence against others but will change due to a variety of reasons. For example they can justify their actions by using a us vs them mentality or separating themselves from the action. This can be seen throughout history with events like the Rwandan genocide and the Holocuast. I think the Milgram experiment shows that people are likely to inflict pain upon others if they are able to distance themselves from the action. Subjects in the experiment who went through all the voltages stated that they only did this because they were told to. Their mentality is that the scientist was the one deciding to shock the other subject, not them, so they were not responsible for the other’s suffering. They have the same reasoning Nazis did when they were on trial, that they were just following orders. I think there is more that goes into ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide then what was tested in Milgram’s experiment. For example the experiment tested only white men from the same area. I think it would be important to see if a person is more likely to shock a person of a different race or nationality than them. Besides the blind following of authority, the us vs them mentality contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others. We are less likely to cause harm to people who are similar to us and more likely to harm those different to us. People are more likely to harm others if they are able to justify their actions to themselves. I think that people with higher views of themselves are more likely to disobey the experimenters in the Milgram experiment. We saw that students with more self-confidence were less likely to cheat and act in ways that go against their self image. This is true for the experiment as well. People with very positive views of themselves are less likely to shock the person because it goes against how they see themselves as a person. On the other hand people with negative self images are more likely to follow the experimenter’s commands despite moral objections.
Dorchester Center, Massachusetts, US
Posts: 3
Originally posted by
ilovemydog34 on September 23, 2024 18:07
I think the Milgram experiments were a prime example of how we are “programmed” to obey the authority above us. These experiments highlight how we willingly inflict harm on others because we are able to justify how we are not responsible for it. We tell ourselves we are simply doing as we are told and we are being forced to do these things by the authority figure. These are principles many of us are aware of and know we possess but when we are put in situations, it is often hard to stray away from them. During the documentary of this experiment we see many examples where the teacher would say they are not comfortable with continuing because the learner was screaming in pain but when the experimenter told them to continue, they did despite how the experimenter had no physical restraints on the teacher, they acted as though they did. I believe that these experiments explain how people can justify behavior they do because they are told to but I think there are still limitations to that. On a far more extreme level, the Nazi’s that followed Hitlers orders were listening to commands but at the same time they were committing mass genocide so some part of them knew what they were doing and weather they forced themselves to agree with what Hitler was doing out of fear is different. This theory was studied in Joshua Barajas’s article, “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind”. He finds “That is, when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves, Haggard said.” I found this quote particularly interesting because it shows how for some reason when we are told to do something, it automatically shift something in our brain to make us feel less responsible for this action, Something else the Milgram experiments emphasized that I think often explains humans behavior to willingly inflict harm on others is that the teacher could not see the learner in pain. There was a wall in between them and they did not know each other, both factors making it much less personal. This physical barrier allowed them to view the subject as not human, which explains why Hitler had the Nazis use the gas chambers, to eliminate personal confrontation because he wanted them to follow his orders. They could not see them and when many went to court we saw that their reasoning was they were simply following orders, implying they were the ones doing the right things because the ones in authority were telling them to do so. Another thing I learned was people will do things when they know the results will not inflict any punishment on them. When the teachers of the Milgram experiment learned that if any physical harm was done to the learner, the experimenters would be responsible, they felt more comfortable continuing. I believe this is because we want to protect ourselves and our view of ourselves. When we can justify our behavior by saying “well it is not my fault” we are more willing to do it. This mindset was most likely used by the Nazis in the same way because they could place the blame on Hitler for the mass genocide, rather than individual Nazis despite how they were the ones who willingly murded innocent people. Overall, something I have observed is people want to protect themselves because that is human nature and they take measures to assure they are protecting themselves before continuing on to hurt someone else. We can see the human tendency to follow the orders of those in authority in many experiments such as the Milgram experiments or similar to them but also in daily life, such as in school or in the workplace. I also learned that we all want to avoid getting into trouble with these authority figures, such as teachers or bosses, so we do this by listening to what they tell us to do. This is yet again another step we take to protect ourselves.
Hello! I thought that your response was very well put and I couldn't agree with your insight more. I found it very intriguing that you brought up the idea of perpetrators being aware of their harm but being unable to stray away from the expectation of obedience; I agree strongly with this point. While the need to obey authority, when applied in real-life situations, is viewed as a negative trait, I think it's also important to account for the fact that the issue lies in the system that has been set up for years and often people find it hard to break out of what is traditionally normal. You also brought up the topic of the diffusion of responsibility, which plays an important role in situations to which we apply this theory. I also observed Joshua Barajas's article and found that quote, which discussed the perpetrator's lack of responsibility, quite relevant. I wholeheartedly agree with you that when harming others, or performing some kind of negative act, perpetrators often feel less responsible when they are ordered to perform these acts, because they are "simply following orders." I think this is an example of dissonance, which we talked about previously in our class. Overall, I really enjoyed reading your response and you covered a lot of topics that I also did in my response, great job!