learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Pistachio on September 24, 2024 07:24

The Milgram experiment revealed that many people don’t care about hurting people as an action, but rather the feeling of guilt from hurting others, the idea that you were connected and responsible for another’s pain. Ordinary people are willing to do the most vilest things as long as they personally feel like they are not the one who wants the pain to befall the person. The teacher during one of the experiments, showed the teacher saying that they wanted to stop, but after a little pressure from the instructor and the instructor stating that he will “take all responsibility”, immediately, the teacher continued the shocks. The Milgram experiment demonstrated that although people do feel remorse for shocking the learner, they often will continue to do so if they insert this idea in their mind that they have no choice in the decision, that they are just a cog in a machine. They feel disconnected from the pain they inflict, hence making them more able to do so. This reflects the ideas and findings in “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas, in which individuals doing heinous acts felt disconnected from the harm of the actions if it were done under a commander’s orders. He said it makes people feel less responsible for their actions, no matter how damaging so much so to the point that when acting under orders, brain activity is reduced, insinuating that there is less thinking involved in the person performing the action, hence less guilt. The only time a teacher stopped from shocking the learner more, had nothing to do with external factors, as the experiment was a replica of the ones where the teacher continued to shock, but had more to do with the strength of the individual. The man that stopped shocking the individual did not give into the demands of necessity, he did not view the person of authority as the one in power. He was conscious of the fact that he was the one truly in control, the one who pushed the button, and he had such a strong sense of self and morals that he refused to pass that threshold even if it was someone else making him do it. He refused to make any excuses or shift the blame, and in his mind he would take 100% accountability for his actions. Creating a society in which this sort of thinking and mental strength is prevalent is very difficult and would require people to be brought up in environments that complement self thought without the fear of what other people think. However, with humans being social creatures, how the world built its education system to have its students regurgitate what they are taught, and how parents teach their children what they believe is right all contribute to the extreme difficulty of this feat. Additionally, if people are raised to think for themselves and trust their own instincts over the words of others 100%, then often no one would be able to agree and everyone would stay rigid to their own opinions. It would create a non cohesive society.

I love the way that you emphasized how guilt is the driving factor in how people choose to access their actions and thoughts. Most people act on how things make them feel, so if someone feels as if they're the ones directly inflicting pain onto another, it's likely they would feel a greater remorse and stop whatever they're doing altogether. By having someone else take direct responsibility for that individuals own actions, they are granted the opportunity to emotionally and mentally detach from them and convince themselves they have no choice but to continue acting on their orders. Comparing this dissociation with their actions and self to being a "cog in a machine" is an amazing way to think about this since they truly believe that is their purpose and have no say in what they do. Also, I find it fascinating how brain activity is reduced when taking orders, which actually makes a lot of sense, but is also incredibly scary. People should questions orders they're given rather than just blindly taking it as fact since, as we've seen throughout history, many orders given are damaging to society, minorities, and communities of people. If more people had been strong enough to take a step back and really think about what they're being told to do, then it's likely things wouldn't have reached the point they had in the past and more people would be inspired by their resistance and fought back. While it is difficult to change systematic systems like schooling like you said, I think it would be incredibly beneficial to our society. By encouraging kids to question what they're learning and why they need it, it could act as a push towards the right direction and not just allowing people to accept everything as fact. I think having a healthy balance of questioning and understanding what we're taught could uplift our society.

I think this was a very insightful and thoughtful response and love the way you worded your thoughts. Very glad to have read this, Pistachio.

Originally posted by fulton on September 24, 2024 09:34

I think that Milgram's experiment and others like it can explain why someone might do something but definitely does not justify it. Everyone will have a very different reason for wanting to follow someone who is above them in a social standing. Some might feel there is going to be a punishment of some sort, they can get fired, killed, and so many other reasons. In this case, the “teachers” were getting paid for their participation so they could feel they were not going to be paid if they stopped. Another factor that could play into someone's willingness to inflict pain on another person could be their thinking they deserve it. In that study, one would be “shocked” after getting an answer incorrect so someone could see that as a completely reasonable excuse to “punish” or “shock” the learner. I think everyone does have the power to become a perpetrator of violence. Anyone could stand up and stop something but it is whether they do or they do not. Many may think that it is black and white between doing something versus not but there are a lot of social aspects that will go into it. Someone may feel they are going to be judged by others for doing or not doing something. Others might feel there will be some kind of repercussion. The Milgram experiment supports both sides of when people will follow through and when people will say no that is enough and not right. One of the “teachers” refused to continue with shocking the learned after about 4 or 5 times and hearing the man yell in pain about his heart. Whereas the other man continued when told to do so. He was hesitant but only to a certain extent because, in the end, he got all the way up to the high voltage. The Milgram project completely shows a sort of obedience to authority. Just because they are being told to continue even when they know it is wrong supports the idea of why ordinary people will engage in mass violence and movements when they are told to do so. Everyone will have a different justification to make themselves feel better about doing something that could be possibly horrifying. Many will say they did not want to get punished and end up on the other side of the violence or that they had no other choice and so on.

Dear Fulton, your response resonates with my personal beliefs regarding the likelihood for an ordinary person to become the perpetrator. I admired the fact that you brought up how these studies and experiments reflect a non black and white world that encompasses more than simply one variable. It is important to remember the different circumstances and individual security one has when thinking about their willingness to obey authority, even if it is deemed morally wrong. I also appreciate the effort you took to highlight the different examples of cognitive dissonance one may experience when undergoing these low acts. I completely agree with your perspective explaining how there is more than one reason why one might feel pressured to do as they are told, but I do disagree with the statement that it does not justify the act. To some extent that can be true, but after even listing just a few different scenarios that would prompt people to respond in a way deemed immoral, it is clear that sometimes it is not so easy to rebel or resist. Since you already mentioned that everything is not only black and white, that applies to this as well. Nonetheless, whether something is justified will always be subjective, but it is important to keep an open mind and try to understand the why, even if you personally do not think it is a valid reason, because having something compelling one to act out is better than nothing. I think it is very easy for an outsider to criticize and dictate what is justified or not, but without actually experiencing a similar situation, and having to decide for yourself which course of action to take, I feel like it is not necessarily our place in a lot of cases to make a judgment. Overall I agreed and appreciated reading your detailed analysis, great job!