learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by PinkWaterbottle on September 24, 2024 12:20

I think that, under certain circumstances, everyone has the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. Whether it’s for something they desire, like money or power, or due to an external force pressuring them into doing so, everyone is capable. The Milgram experiments suggest that it is easier to inflict pain on others when we are being pushed by authority. The authority’s demands allow the individual to deflect blame off of them, ultimately making them feel less sorry for their own violent actions. These experiments also suggest that the proximity of the authoritative figure to the individual affects their actions. For example, one “teacher” during the trial repeatedly tried to end the experiment and leave, but the “experimenter” insisting they had to sit back down and finish the experiment was more effective than the “learner’s” potential death. This is because of the difference in distance.

I think experiments like Milgram’s are just one example of ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass genocide, etc. There are many other reasons why people could partake in acts like these, such as natural evilness, psychological differences, and much more. There doesn’t always have to be a “teacher” present for this to happen. The experiments should have included another trial where the “teacher” was farther in physical distance from the “experimenter” to determine how effective the experiment was. I hypothesize that if the experimenter were in another room, the teacher would have less incentive to stay and continue with the experiment. I also believe that if the teacher could see the learner, rather than just hearing them, the teacher would have stopped the experiment early. Another possibility arises from the Stanford experiment, where regular participants are given the ability to punish prisoner actors like police officers. As Maria Korrinkova states in “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment”, “extreme institutions” are also the root cause of people inflicting pain on others. Therefore, I don’t believe that The Milgram experiments provide us with the only reason as to why regular people commit acts of violence.

Some of the most important factors/personality traits that led the “teachers” to disobey the “experimenters” was a strong sense of self. If you know internally that acts of violence don’t correspond with who you are, and you are firm in that belief, you are much less likely to continue on with hurting someone else. If this were the case, right when the teacher began to hear these cries, the teacher would have immediately gotten up and ended the experiment. For example, one teacher began laughing at the learner’s cries, even though he was convinced they were extremely hurt. Regardless of his instincts, he continued harming the learner when the experimenter demanded that he finish the experiment. I only see positives in creating societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. If anything, that person would be a true hero and a leader to the people around them who suffer from the Obedience Theory and, in some cases, the Mass Society Theory.

I think that this post presents a compelling and detailed analysis of the factors that motivate ordinary people to commit acts of violence, particularly emphasizing the role of authority and personal conviction. This argument about the influence of surrounding authority figures is very interesting. It highlights how physical distance can impact moral decisions, which raises various important questions surrounding accountability in different situations. I agree with the claim that not only authority figures play crucial roles in violent behavior, but also psychological and situational factors. The connection that was made between the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison Experiment strengthens the argument, demonstrating that extreme environments can increase individuals' tendencies to harm others. One suggestion I would make for improvement could be to provide more concrete and significant examples of individuals who resisted authority, as this would support the theme of personal conviction even more. Additionally, elaborating on how societal structures can encourage or discourage disobedience could also enhance the depth of this analysis. Overall, I think that this reflection on the importance of self-awareness in resisting corrupt authority matches my views. I believe that encouraging environments that celebrate fair decision-making can empower individuals to stand against injustice. This writing encourages further recognition of these significant themes, making it a valuable contribution to the discussion on obedience and violence.

Originally posted by crazygoose17 on September 25, 2024 21:22

I think everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others because we all have things that we don’t like or agree with. All it takes is for one thing to tick us off and we find ourselves harming others. Many people who are in jail right now for murder or assault would say that they didn’t mean to or something just went off in their head, causing them to do what they did. They could even be influenced by other people who hold a lot more power than they do. For example, we often look up to and follow our older siblings because they are role models to us. If they told us to go beat someone up– for no reason at all, we’d do it both out of fear and also out of the desire to be liked by our sibling. We want to be as cool as them. The quote from Bauman saying that we don’t like the idea of bad things happening to us but we can do it to other people reflects how we wouldn’t want our older sibling to beat us up for not doing what they said so we inflict harm on other people to save ourselves. That applies to big leaders today, out of fear or the desire to be liked by or be like those around us, we tend to do what they say without much question.

I think Milgram's experiment accurately depicts ordinary people’s active participation in mass atrocities to a certain degree. The “teachers” were given orders to inflict pain on other people and chose to listen to the experimenter most likely because of the experimenter's role in the experiment. They probably thought that he knew what he was doing and chose to not question the expert. They also most likely listened to him because he is a higher power than them and his tone was very firm, suggesting that he was not going to change his mind about experimenting. The experimenter also kept referring to the teacher as a teacher instead of referring to them by their name. This could have given the teachers more of a reason to not stop the experiment. If they know that they are the teacher and that they hold higher authority than the learner, they are more likely to keep on going with the experiment. In mass genocides like the Holocaust, the “good side” is praised for their obedience to the leader or the “good side.” These incentives and words of affirmation give them more of a reason and justification to feel okay with the violence that occurs around them. I think one factor that could come into play is if there is violence being inflicted among the people on the “good side” if they don’t cooperate with the leader. In many fictional dystopian societies, there are consequences when people don’t listen or help those on the “bad side.” Another factor could be their mental health. For example, if they are a sociopath and/or they don’t feel things for other people. While many factors and personalities vary, we will always be influenced by a higher authority in one way or another.

The idea that I found most compelling from this post is the connection that they made to siblings. I agree that siblings can have great influence on each other, especially if one of the siblings is younger. The idea is interesting because these situations don't always have to be associated with violence and harm being done to other people. The same idea applies regardless of the situation. I also believe that younger siblings have a tendency to act like their older siblings because of the role the older sibling has compared to the younger sibling. I also agree with the claim that the experiments would replicate real situations to a certain extent. The teachers putting their faith and listening to the experimenters that seemingly held all of the authority could represent how soldiers felt in war. However, the idea of discontinuing the violence might sprout into action more frequently as a soldier. On the other hand, the people who decided not to stop might’ve felt the fear of what consequences would soon follow their lack of cooperation. This can similarly be seen in the soldiers who go to war and fear that their actions might be seen as betraying the country by choosing to opt out of the war. Overall, I agree and liked the post. Maybe you could clear up some of the wording in the second paragraph and I would’ve liked to see more about the sociopath standpoint in the last second paragraph.

Originally posted by bostongirl5 on September 21, 2024 17:36

While everyone is very different, I think we all have the potential to become perpetrators of violence against others. What sets us apart, is that we all have varying levels of tolerance. The Milgram experiments provide us with the evidence that when faced with the choice between obedience or personal opinion, we often follow what we are told. However, I do not think that the experiments are reflective of the general public’s actions. It's important to take note that all of the participants were middle aged white men. They also signed up to take part in this expierment, so they have some sort of drive to want to test and be tested. Furthermore, at that time, these participants were all working, and probably were used to obeying rules and orders. However, if this test were to be run on various random people, I think there would be a difference in when or even whether or not people would obey. This being said, I do think we all have the potential to inflict violence on others. This is because anger, fear, confusion and sadness are often the drivers of violence, and they are emotions felt strongly by everyone. Someone’s willingness to cause pain can be influenced by many different factors. Past experiences with receiving or seeing violence, could make a person less or more likely to then cause pain for others. A lack of care for anyone, or feelings of numbness may make a person perfectly okay with inflicting pain on others, and not feel any sort of remorse or regret. In the Milgram experiment, the difference between those who continued to cause pain, or those who argued against it, might have their own moral compass telling them what to do. I think the system of obedience that America teaches, however, can take control over that compass and cause someone to continue inflicting pain because they feel a need to ‘follow the rules’ and ‘obey authority’.

Attempting to create societies where disobedience is taught is in effect, the same as a society teaching obedience. While it is important to teach values like self-expression, independent thought, and self-advocacy from an early age, teaching disobedience can become dangerous. This is because there will be no order or unity among a society filled with disobedience. Some aspects of obedience are important. It is important we obey traffic laws, it is important we obey safe medical practice, it is important we obey basic social etiqutte (in iteself an oxymoron). There also are important aspects of disobedience. Learning to say no, for example, is vital for a child, and equally important to reteach to teenagers, and young adults. It is also important for people to be able to stand up for themselves and others, even when it means going against the norm and disobeying someone or something. Attempting to create a society that values disobedience seems contradictory to me, because would it teach it that it is better to be disobedient than obedient? And isn’t that just another way of teaching obedience? In the article Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, by Cari Romm, Matthew Hollander, a sociology Ph.D. candidate at the University of Wisconsin states this idea perfectly; “The ability to disobey toxic orders, Hollander said, is a skill that can be taught like any other—all a person needs to learn is what to say and how to say it”.

My peer held a core belief similar to my own, in that we both established that we believe anyone can be a perpetrator. They went on, however, to mention a factor that I hadn’t even thought to consider. This, of course, being that the Milgram experiments consisted only of a select group of people -- one that is by no means a clear-cut image of an entire population’s decisions or beliefs. My peer went on to explain their perspective, in that they believe we all have varying levels of “tolerance” to the forces that compel us to harm. Although not exactly contrary to my own reasoning, I do still believe that the experiment provides a general, valuable look into human nature -- though it should not be a guideline in which we can guess how any one person is going to respond to these such stressors, I find that, though still remiss to finer details, it is a testament to the desire for comfort that we hold, and the thresholds we pass in order to affirm it. From what I gathered, this is slightly askew from how my peer prioritized the consideration of all the other factors that affect this tolerance in each individual. Overall, I found our points aligned with one another’s. Additionally, a point of “critic” I have is that they might want to elaborate on their references to the outside source a bit more -- I found their ideas and line of reasoning very interesting, and would have otherwise liked to see them expand on that through the article’s accompanying thoughts.

Originally posted by everlastingauroras on September 20, 2024 10:32

Compliance towards authority is not the sole reason that genocides occur. There are a multitude of factors that impact them, and cause these strings of violence. However, authority still has a large impact on individuals. As discussed in the article “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind” Joshua Bajaras mentions how Adolf Eichmann, a Holocaust organizer and low level officer, was “just following orders.” While some may view this as some sort of explanation and justification, there are many other systematic and psychological factors that impact their decision making. Despite being someone in a lower position, Adolf Eichmann still went to great extents to participate in the Holocaust. Ones that mere citizens would not go to. For example, he actively participated in teh Wansee conference, one that heavily encouraged the continuation of the genocide. It is clear that his actions were not done out of fear of obedience, when he went to such great lengths. There are still many psychological matters that we also must take into consideration. When discussing the Stanford Prison Life Experiment, they tested out the difference in people reaching out with Prison versus without prison. They noticed that the initial group had “significantly higher levels of aggressiveness, authoritarianism, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and social dominance, and they scored lower on measures of empathy and altruism.” This impacts people's willingness to be cruel and violent towards others. Even if the discrimination against Jewish people was not something many of the officers necessarily agreed with, their participation in this was a result of possible psychological factors. We also have to consider things such as the environment people grew up in. Trauma is an extremely impactful thing that can follow people around for the rest of their lives. Grouping up surrounded by things such as violence, hate, and strict protocols can result in individuals mirroring these exact things later on.

People are always everchanging, meaning the way they treat others is also as well. I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. There are still many nuances involved in this. For example, we must consider the situation one person may be in. Sometimes violence is used as a strategy of self defense, and the only option available. Sometimes it is performed professionally, such as activities like boxing. Some things are accidents or playful, like lightly hitting someone when laughing, or accidently smacking someone in the face. At the same time, some people are to some extent forced. For example, in South Korea it is required by the law for men to join the military for a period of time. A lot of the time there is no strong backbone on the coercion of violence. There are still many sectors of the military you can join that don’t involve violence. I believe that it is important to view everything from a bird's eye perspective. To some extent, violence inevitable. Being a part of violence does not automatically make someone a bad or violent person. It is sort of unempathetic to determine your opinion on limited information. That is something you wouldn't want others to do to you. You can never fully understand someone's situation or reason for violence until you're in the same position. However, it is important to say that these things are not always applicable. For example, towards mass genocides or other violent crimes such as murder. The question really is what determines actions as too cruel or inhumane to be justified? That is for individuals to decide.

I think the most compelling idea in this post is that there are always different factors contributing to why people do things. Whether it be personal trauma, the environment someone grew up in, or just the context of the situation can be a reason as to why violence happens. I agree with this because everyone has their own lives and situation that may have prompted them to commit an act of violence. Like this post says, the person could have done it out of self-defense or had some kind of trauma associated with the situation. This could have forced the person to shy away from doing something about the violence and just decide to follow orders to avoid the same thing happening. In my own post, I mentioned some circumstances of when someone might act differently. These could be personal situations like the environment that person grew up in or things they were taught growing up. I agree with the point that everyone has the potential to become perpetrators of violence. Although it may not be on purpose, almost everyone falls victim to becoming perpetrators of violence in their lives. That can range from accidentally bumping into someone, to joining the military. Therefore, I think everyone can be perpetrators to violence because accidents do happen and everything isn’t always done on purpose. Overall, I think this post agreed with my post for the most part and was a very interesting read.

Originally posted by traffic cone on September 24, 2024 21:43

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

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

I greatly agree with this point and it very accurately reflects some of the points that I made in my argument. In America we are getting to comfortable with the uncomfortable, the ideologies that our government inflicts worldwide, the domestic issues we face, and moreover their frequency allows us to tune them out surprisingly. We have developed the ability to tune out the impossible because Americans so often believe that we have greater moral prerogative than any other nation on our planet, we must "manifest our destiny". We are disconnected, from each other, our society, and ultimately our moral in the society that we live in, and to no avail are we seeking to remedy this problem. This is a problem in our society that is ailing the world, and we need to seek to fix it because it is destroying us.

Originally posted by Dale on September 24, 2024 22:44

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

Your post's connection between personal behavior and societal influences is very crucial, it is interesting how you explain how charismatic leaders and propaganda can sway the general population. It shows a lot of examples of political figures from today who use similar techniques to gain support and defend destructive behavior. This brings up an interesting subject of how moral sacrifices can result from societal situations; this is a concept that is reflected in different things that concern group dynamics and collective behavior. This concept is strong, especially in light of the "just following orders" explanation that many Nazis used throughout the Holocaust. How you implemented elements of society like mob mentality, propaganda, and charismatic leadership emphasizes the complex relationship between personal morality and outside influences, making your argument inclusive of all the different ideas. It shows a lot of great different examples as to why people are more susceptible to harm. You made a great connection between the article and the questions, using the ideas and comparing them to what the Nazi Party and Hitler did made your point stronger. Your words had a good flow and you did a good job at connecting all of them together.

Originally posted by ClockRabbit1191 on September 24, 2024 20:45

Although the mass atrocities in WW2 with the holocaust or with slavery in the Americas were terrible the Milgram experiments give us an insight as to why these people did what they did. The experiment was a test to see if people would continue to harm others if told to do so. The reason this really worked is because the “teacher”, the one doing the shocking, would listen to the experimenter. They believed that they had the power and could take blame for themselves and listened to what they said. I do believe that this explains why people participated in mass atrocities; with this said I don’t condone what they did. Joshua Barajas claims in How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just following order” Plays out in the mind that, “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) Barajas claims that people don’t feel guilty if they are being told to do an action even if they know it's wrong. It can be seen almost everyday in the real world. The blame immediately gets shifted off of yourself and onto another person leading you to follow orders and believe yourself to have no consequences. I believe that the people committing these heinous acts do this for a few reasons, one is that they fear the person in power leading them to do whatever they say. Number 2 is that they want to reduce their Cognitive dissonance which is how they reduce their levels of guilt over whatever they might have done. People do this to convince themselves that they are in fact a good person by giving themselves reasons to justify their actions. The milgram experiments have the “teacher” continually ask the experimenter if they “will take the blame” or “will you take full responsibility.” People committing larger scale genocides may tend to deflect blame onto the higher up for instance, “Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann wrote that he and other low-level officers were “forced to serve as mere instruments,””(Barajas) The blame in not only the experiments, the real world and even mass atrocities have the same thing in common and that is that it's always pushed onto someone else. I think these experiments also display the immense power some of the leaders of the world have on their subjects and law enforcers. Before the milgram experiments I believed that the people enforcing their laws truly believed what the leaders stood for, now I understand this not to be true. People go with what they fear or who gives them a clean conscience whether or not they believe they are doing the wrong thing or believe in something they don’t necessarily find to be true. Although I think this explains why some of these people were hurt and murdered, I do not think this can be excused because they were doing it out of fear or didn’t believe they were going to be the ones punished. I also don’t think that people only did these things based on these facts, I think people decided to hurt others based on things like anger. As stated previously not everyone had these ideas on “just following orders” some just wanted to do these acts just to do them. To me this adds an additional layer of complexity to what is already a complex situation.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post is the connection between the Milgram experiment and the behavior of individuals who participated in mass atrocities, particularly how they shift responsibility to a figure of authority. This is a strong point because it highlights the big idea of cognitive dissonance in human psychology when people disconnect themselves from their actions. After all, they are following orders, even in situations like the Holocaust when the Nazi’s defense was that they were just following orders. I agree with this idea because it helps explain why people do certain things and commit certain actions since they feel that the authority is responsible and morally challenged instead of them. The idea is interesting because it offers a broader perspective of human behavior, depicting how people can prioritize obedience over morality when they truly believe that they are not in the wrong and won’t face consequences. As for my own views on the topic they are similar because people never want to feel guilty and morally responsible for anything bad that happens. Nobody wants to feel like they are the reason that terrible things happen, so instead they will disassociate themselves from their actions and say that they’re just following orders

Originally posted by verose on September 20, 2024 17:16

I do believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator. Although I may also believe that not everyone does such things with bad intentions, it stands to reason that we are very susceptible to authority and conformity. We, as humans, don’t like to be uncomfortable -- whether it is a physical stressor, such as high humidity on a Summer day, or moral dissonance that we are forced to stomach, we act in the way that resolves this conflict the easiest and quickest. So often in our lives we ignore our own thoughts or beliefs for the sake of preserving a group’s good favor towards us, or to ignore the part we have played in, say, hurting someone else. This susceptibility, this ease in which we can cast aside our sense of selves for comfortability, is how we become so capable of harming our fellow human beings. The Milgram experiment illuminates a great example of this. When the teacher was faced with the shocks he was told to inflict upon another man, particularly the other’s distress as a result of them, he was, understated-ly, uncomfortable. He knew, as many of us are brought up, that harming another is morally wrong, that it is an exertion of power and control that has no place between two beings of the same constitution and worth. But the discomfort of his actions, the reality that it was HIM inflicting this pain, overshadowed his morals. He knew he was doing something wrong, and he knew that he didn’t like this, and it is in a human trend that he turned to the authority in the room with him. The teacher subconsciously placed the responsibility upon the experimenter, told himself that he was being forced to complete this action, even as the other exerted no violence or verbal threat in response to the hesitance. The experimenter told him to continue, and the teacher did, because it is easier to continue a bad habit and blame his circumstances, than it is to stop, and acknowledge what he has done, and reconcile with those consequences. But this isn’t to say that this makes a bad person -- it is, simply, inarguably, human nature. This experiment supports the idea that everyone is capable of it, but so too does it argue that our evil actions do not inherently make us evil. Though we cannot excuse that which we do for the sake of the “oh, I couldn’t help it” mentality, it does evolve this duality of man: the capability of violence, and the implications of it on one’s character. If you don’t not CHOOSE to do something, are you still held responsible for the action? I would argue that yes, you are -- but that the action is not a clear-cut purview into one’s “goodness,” rather simply a testament to the workings of the human mind.

Joshua Barajas delves into a very similar concept in his article “How Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays Out in the Mind.” His work references a number of scientific findings, but a general consensus that is supported by the chemicals of the brain, and the results reported in experiments such as that of Milgram’s, is that “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act” (Barajas 2). It evolves this understanding that people, when in moments of duress, turn themselves to the authoritarian figure that is either encouraging, or excusing, the heinous action that is being done. It’s in human nature that we subjugate ourselves to the regime that has been set in any given circumstance, such as that in a school setting, or simply out in public. We release a majority of our agency, or so we believe, to the rules that are set for us, even those understood silently, or simply the expectations of the leader we recognize. It’s in this way that we feel we have no choice but to adhere to the task that we are instructed with, such as the Milgram teacher administering the shocks, and yet also in this way, we refuse to take responsibility for ourselves. We write them off as what was asked for, and, by extension, not a problem in regards to our morals or beliefs. It is how we grapple with the atrocities or even just mistakes that we have allowed to happen, so that we can retain that same need for “comfort.”

I think the most compelling point in your argument is how we as humans are hardwired to behave in the ways seen in the Milgram experiment. You did a very good job taking the information from the experiment and extrapolating a general theme, which was developed and explained throughout your response. I also liked how you tied in Joshua Barajas’ article about the brain chemistry behind this behavior, solidifying how people are naturally primed to deflect and deny responsibility for their actions. You delved deep into the moral conflicts faced by the teacher and explained what influenced their choices in the experiment. I also like how you took the nuanced route and made sure to clarify how the actions of the teacher doesn’t inherently make them a bad person. Many people given the circumstances would have behaved in a similar manner and it’s only human to. I understand your argument and appreciate it, as your response has changed my own opinions. I initially thought that not everyone has the capacity to perpetuate violence, but your response made me think of how nuanced of a topic this is. I was thinking more on the side of physical violence; actively hurting someone whether directly or indirectly. However, there are many more ways to perpetuate violence than I initially thought. Even if someone is unable to handle hearing someone in pain, or starting a physical altercation, they can perpetuate violence through their speech, opinions, beliefs, or actions. Your argument helped me see that, which I appreciate.

Originally posted by Tired on September 24, 2024 18:40

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

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

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

Lastly, I think it’s possible to create societies that encourage the disobeying of authority because we already kind of created a society that does. If you go outside to the white house, you will most likely find that there are protesters, advocating for rights and for things to be implemented or removed, hating or praising the president. We have already created a society that will fight back against unfair or tyrannical rulers. I think if we continue this kind of movement, and this kind of momentum, then our society will be able to fight back even against the harshest of dictatorships, like the governments of other countries, and on the other side of the world, like the fearless communists throughout Asia and Europe.

I strongly agree with your main points was that the deflection of responsibility and obedience being hammered into people’s minds is what allowed them to commit violent acts that conflicted with their morals. Something interesting I found in this post was that you brought up people’s past circumstances and how that influenced their current actions. Our history shapes our perceptions of the world and it was interesting to see how you brought up Hitler’s own experiences and how that might’ve justified his reason for committing these violent acts. Like many others, you also stated how people in society have been dulled to blindly follow orders and I strongly agree with your statement that society should have more activists and speak up about the current issues in our world. The Nazi Party in Germany and many other corrupt governments around the world were a result of people being manipulated and indoctrinated to accept certain beliefs. In order to prevent any similar events from happening, we must speak up and act against them. Another topic that many others also said was how the deflection of responsibility shapes our actions. In this post and others, a similarity I found that I never really thought of before was how people also followed orders out of laziness and just to get it over with.

Originally posted by User0729 on September 23, 2024 20:12

I do not believe that everybody has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others because much like how the man in the Milgram experiment who had refused to continue the shocks, people will not give in to the societal pressures that could be enforced in a situation similar to that in the experiment. What the Milgram experiment shows us is that although not everybody, but a majority of people will be able to follow through with being the perpetrator in a situation as shown in the experiment. All it takes is simply somebody to push you forward and egg you on. Without that person, it is less likely that one will be able to continue causing another’s pain while hearing their pain. Experiments much like Milgram’s can in fact explain the reasoning behind mass atrocities, violence, and genocide because people are hard-wired to listen to authority and are capable of disregarding their moral compass to obey that authority. This can be caused by a fear of authority and a fear that if they do not obey then they will be the one to be harmed, but also the safeguard of simply having no choice but to obey creates this cognitive dissonance where you look at yourself as the lucky one in the situation instead of the unlucky one, who is receiving the pain. Patrick Haggard also states, “People actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” This proves that people will shift the blame in order to feel better about themselves, relating back to that cognitive dissonance where people create a barrier between themselves and the truth. Creating this wall can allow a person to further continue in the violation of others since there seems to be little to no resentment or guilt that could possibly prevent them. This wall can just be physical like a literal wall, or maybe a person who is telling them to continue making them believe that they are not at fault but those who are “forcing” them to continue. Other factors that can come into play are who the person is that they are committing these acts towards, the setting, and possibly the type of pain that is associated with the punishment. It is even possible that some of these people enjoy inflicting pain on others, or enjoy the idea of having the power to control another person. Much like in the Stanford Prison experiment, where one of the students wondered how far could they really push that line before somebody tells them to “knock it off”. Some possible personality traits that could lead to the “teacher” to disobey the “experimenters” in this experiment are people who are more empathetic, confident in themselves, and independent enough to be able to not fall into peer pressure and decide when enough is enough. Yes there could be a way to promote and enforce independence in each individual but it may not be super effective in a larger society. This is because without somebody to lead and set somewhat of a standard chaos can just sprout and the society could collapse.

First off, great job! All of your points are well-written, clear, and organized well. I have no suggestions about the mechanical aspect of your post or about the depth of discussion you dive into. In my opinion, the most compelling idea in your post is how you state that the perpetrators of violence and atrocities often create a “barrier,” whether physical or emotional, between themselves and the victim to justify their cruel and unredeemable actions. I also found your point on how perpetrators try their best to reduce cognitive dissonance by shifting the blame and reminding themselves that they are the “lucky” one in the given situation, while the victim is the “unlucky” one, quite compelling as well. I mentioned some of the points you made in my own post, and fully agree with both of those ideas because I believe that as humans, we often tend not to want to feel “responsible” for any of our wrongdoings and try to rectify them by any means possible to avoid internal conflict or cognitive dissonance. This can further be proven in the Milgram experiment when one of the “teachers,” who went all the way to the lethal voltage number, kept asking the experimenter whether or not he would be held responsible if the “student” was actually harmed.

Originally posted by questions on September 23, 2024 17:31

Based on the Milgram experiment, I can conclude that everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. In the experiment, the teacher was asked to shock the learner, an actor, if the learner got any questions wrong. Not surprisingly, over half of the teachers did what they were told to do and willingly harmed someone else just because they were told to by someone they thought had power over them. Although many showed some sort of discomfort in the situation, they still decided to harm the learner. This just proves that in times when there are people in power, most people are willing to do whatever they are told, even if it means harming the other person. However, this does not take into account the fact that the teacher could have known or somehow figured out the fact that this experiment was actually being conducted on them. According to Australian psychologist Gina Perry in the article, Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments, there are so many problems with the Milgram experiment, ranging from participants knowing it was a hoax to experimenters going off script, that it is necessary to rethink the whole experiment. Therefore, the Milgram experiment does not actually explain ordinary people’s actions in times of violence, mass atrocities, genocide because it does not consider factors like the participant’s personal situation.

On the other hand, there were a couple participants that actively refused to continue on with the experiment. These participants seemed to be more confident and determined in their views, possibly contributing to the reason as to why they absolutely refused to injure the learner any further. People that have more self-confidence are more likely to stand up for themselves, even if there is someone with more power telling them the opposite of what they believe in. These participants could have also experienced firsthand what would happen if they didn’t do something about the situation, giving them more determination to put a stop to the experiment. I think it is important for society to teach people to not be a bystander in situations of violence. However, I know that it isn’t extremely possible for everyone to stand up for themselves with confidence in order to fight for their rights. Many are taught to keep silent since they were children to not be bothersome, especially in times when there is a central figure who everyone seems to obey. Additionally, oftentimes there are punishments for going against authority, leading to even less people standing up for themselves. Although I think a society would benefit with more people that disobey an unethical authority figure, I think it is not possible because society is taught to be silent since childhood. If social norms changed now and all of the younger generations were taught to be an upstander, it is more likely that there would be more up-standers in society years in the future. Still, there would be problems with society because if there are too many people going against central authority, it will cause instability. Ultimately, I believe that it is more realistic for society to find a balance between having too few and too many up standers.

This statement is very interesting. While watching the clips of the experiment that we saw, I felt as if the experiment did an accurate job of depicting how people can easily do harmful or immoral things to other people when they know they aren’t responsible for those things. However, knowing from your statement that the experiment was criticized to be not entirely accurate, I think otherwise. I now would say that the experiment does a good job of showing how people all are divergent and will act differently in that situation. I believe that the experiment would have more accurately had the intended results if it had somehow been done on a larger scale. This is because people need to have a sense of belonging in order to feel better about wrong actions that cause dissonance. When people know they’re not responsible for the harm done and also know that everyone like them is creating the same harm, they are more likely to create said harm onto said people. The Milgram experiment only used three people at a time; one learner, one teacher, and one operator. Most historical mass-movements that have done harm towards people have engulfed large amounts of people, oftentimes entire nations.

Originally posted by fionaphoenix on September 24, 2024 21:42

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

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

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

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

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

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

When looking at this writing and then looking back at my own I see a lot of overlap in some of the points we both made points regarding the idea of pushing the responsibility of your actions on others. A claim that the author made was that when joining the in-group you lose a sense of morals and tend to do ruthless things to others. This piqued my interest as I was curious as to why this would happen but when I thought about it it made sense, you get comfortable with being the same as everyone else so you would turn a blind eye to whatever is happening, even subconsciously. I also like how the author talks about peer pressure, with peer pressure you may not like what your doing but you feel like you have to do it just to fit in with the ingroup better. This fact makes the situation more interesting as there are people who just don’t want to take responsibility but also others who feel they must do what they are doing just to fit in. Looking back on our similarities in putting responsibility on others, both the milgram experiment and these atrocities had this in common blaming the experimenter and higher ranked officials for what they did. This is a common factor in many atrocities around the world by people attempting to get rid of their cognotive dissonance over the situation.

Originally posted by Fahrenheit.jr. on September 25, 2024 21:33

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

responsible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the laws.

An interesting point that you made was that desensitization to acts of violence can influence whether somebody becomes a perpetrator. You mentioned that exposure to violence in our daily lives, “whether watching the news, scrolling through Instagram, or watching violent movies” can cause one to become used to human suffering. This desensitization can erode a person’s sense of empathy, as you said. I think this is an interesting point because it is something that applies to all of us, because we are all exposed to violence frequently. It is interesting to think how this can impact our day-to-day behavior or personalities. I also like how you connected this decades-old experiment with current day things (social media), to show how this experiment is still relevant and important. At the end of your post, you said that it is important to create societies where people are free to question authority and stand up for their beliefs, but you said that this can be a dangerous thing because it can cause people to challenge “legitimate authority”. This is something I agree with, although I think it is possible to have a society in which people are taught to stand up for their values but also learn which values will benefit the greater good, and learn how to decide if a government should be challenged based on its ideology and actions.