learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by bigdah7 on September 23, 2025 08:22

In our minds, we often defer to an authority figure on what to do when we are confronted with hard or confusing information. Such as during the Milgram experiment, most people followed the instructions of the experimenter. To most people this is shocking, when we think about strangers, we often think that they wouldn’t kill us or do horrible things. Under a microscope I believe everyone has the potential to commit a violent act against others. When confronted by an authority figure, people would willingly “follow orders”. “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind”, by Joshua Barajas discusses how when ordered to do something, we often throw responsibility for our actions to the authority figure, and distance ourselves from the action, thus proving to ourselves why we can do it. If we distance ourselves from the action it becomes ok in our minds to do such. By doing this everyone could become a killer somewhat easily. Another factor that could lead to people becoming violent is the desire to be alive, or not be socially ostracized.

Milgram's experiments partially explain active participation by ordinary people in mass violent events. While this experiment explains the role of authority in making people commit violence, there are many other factors that come into play when people are pushed to commit violence on one another. One factor may be social pressures. When people join a mob, they lose their social values, and their ideas about what society thinks is right. Mob mentality is also a huge part of why ordinary people partake in violence on a mass scale. When you join a mob, you lose your sense of individuality, responsibility for your actions. Social pressure relates to this because when you are with a group, you want to be part of the group, say your group is attacking somebody, you are most often going to attack them in order to not be turned into the other group. When you are also threatened with your life, or threatened in general, most people would turn on their fellow humans, for self preservation. The idea that we would switch up on our fellow persons could be seen as appalling, but this is in our nature, to survive.

In the Milgram experiment, ‘teachers’ with a weak sense of self are more likely to listen to the experimenter and not stop the experiment. However those with better moral values and higher sense of self are more likely to stop the experiment. Another quality that could influence whether ‘teachers’ stop the shocking is their sense of empathy, those with high feelings of empathy would most likely stop the experiment. Those who are psycho or sociopaths who feel less empathy than the average person are going to ignore the shouts for mercy, and completely listen to the experimenter. In our modern society, we encourage the abnormal, whatever it is, such as leaders, sports and actions. Attempting to create a society where standing up to unethical leaders is encouraged seems very unlikely, while most will go along with what the leader says, still a select few will still stand up to them. There is an apparent danger in this as well, as different people could consider different leaders unethical or not. This could encourage mass violent political movements when people have a disagreement with someone in power.

The part that I found most interesting was the idea that people tend to blame the authority figures for the actions that they committed leading them to distance themselves. I agree with your opinion because it is exactly what the experiment showed, in the context of world history, soldiers tend to have to do different actions either with or against their personal ideology but put the blame on the authoritative figure by stating that they were “just following orders like everyone else” not regarding anything that they believe in but conforming to the major group. I find it really interesting because it reveals how ordinary people who might see themselves as good can still justify doing terrible things when the feeling of responsibility isn’t on them. It shows us how our human behavior changes drastically in different situations.

I also think your point about mob mentality is powerful. Especially in our world today, it is very easy to lose our sense of identity in a world that tells us that we have to be in a group and go along with that group, even if it can lead to violence. I also wrote how social pressure can change people and make them do things they normally wouldn’t. In our society, nobody wants to be an outsider because our instinct is to follow the crowd. However, more and more young adults are pushing the narrative and sticking to who they are. Overall, our views on this topic are very similar. Your post did an awesome job showing how complicated our choices are today and the influence that authority and groups play.

Originally posted by Critt3rsarer1zzy on September 21, 2025 14:11

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, because human behavior can be shaped by authority, distance, and the environment around us.We can see how ordinary people obeyed orders even when it meant causing harm. This sets the foundation for understanding other studies, like the Stanford Prison experiment, which also shows how easily people can slip into cruelty under the right conditions. Through Milgram’s experiment, conducted at Yale University, which placed participants in the roles of teachers and learners. It proved that not only people obeyed authority even when it meant harming others, but through the tone of voice that is provided by the one telling those what to do. “It is difficult to harm a person we touch…quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear… it is far easier to maltreat others if they are personal strangers…especially if we engage in rationalization processes of self-deception that serve to dehumanize them.” (A Matter of Obedience, Page 3-4) This shows how the circumstances of distance and dehumanization makes it a lot easier for ordinary people to hurt those they do not personally know. Together, these findings suggest that under the right conditions, obedience and emotional distance can push almost anyone towards evil violence. This idea is reinforced by another famous study: the Stanford Prison experiment. The Stanford Prison showed that some guards became abusive simply because the environment they were put in encouraged it and authority figures did not stop them. We as mammals through the source of nature, were created to be in groups. This natural instinct makes us more likely to follow the influence of others, especially in a group setting where there is always a leader. This often leads us to want to impress, please, or avoid angering authority figures. These experiments demonstrate that people may do harmful things in order to gain approval from those in power. “Occasionally, disputes…violating an explicit injunction against physical force…When the 'superintendent’ and ‘warden’ overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are.” (The Real Lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Page 2) This shows people can slip into cruelty behaviors and mindset, if authority figures fail to restrain them from doing anything. In fact, the danger of obedience becomes even clearer when looking beyond experiments and into real history, such as the Holocaust. Through our nature of wanting to impress our leaders/authority figures, it disconnects our brains and body from knowing what is wrong and right. But is that really an excuse to use? I read the article " How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays out in the Mind”, which questions whether obedience can truly excuse someone's actions, especially considering how far the holocaust goes down into history. Nazi used the excuse of following orders to make people feel disconnected from their actions, a defense that attempted to shift responsibility away from individuals.“In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from the outcome that they themselves caused…people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” (How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays out in the Mind ,Page 1) This shows how obedience lets people commit harm without fully feeling responsible. However, recognizing this disconnection does not erase the moral responsibility of their choices. Instead, it reminds us that while obedience can explain behavior, it cannot justify cruelty. The Milgram experiment suggests that human behavior can be deeply influenced by authority, distance, and the way harm is carried out. These factors reveal how ordinary people, under the right circumstances, can willingly cause pain on others without fully realizing the weight of their own actions. Obedience to authority pushes people to harm others. Most people when they are placed under the direction of someone they view as powerful (authority figures) or credible, they often silence their own moral doubts, will, and choice of decisions. The pressure to obey creates a sense that disobedience is worse than the act of harm itself. “But that same year Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, conducted a series of famous experiments that tested whether “ordinary” folks would inflict harm on another person after following orders from an authoritative figure. Shockingly, the results suggested any human was capable of a heart of darkness.”(How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays out in the Mind, Page 1) This shows that simply following authority can lead ordinary people to commit harm. What makes this even more concerning is that obedience often happens automatically, and it does not require the person to be cruel by nature. Instead, it shows how fragile our sense of morality can be when pressured by someone in power. This transitions us into another factor: distance and indirect harm. We choose to believe that when we don’t know someone personally, we could care less about them, which creates indirect methods of harm to reduce guilt and responsibility. Situations similar to this mindset happen a lot in everyday life, like for example, when bystanders refuse to step in during an emergency because they assume “someone else will help.” This type of detachment makes it easier to ignore the suffering of others, especially when there is no personal connection or face-face interaction. “Russell and Gregory also believe that the way the harm is inflicted would affect the willingness of individuals to do it…they point out that the shock generator was a technological and indirect way… rather than using “direct physical force.” (A Matter of Obedience, Page 4) this suggests people will go further when the violence feels less personal. In the end, Milgram’s experiments remind us that potential for cruelty lies not only in individuals, but in the systems and environments that shape their choices. Recognizing this is the first step in making sure obedience does not excuse harm, and distance does not allow us to forget our responsibility to others.

Post your response here.

Originally posted by Critt3rsarer1zzy on September 21, 2025 14:11

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, because human behavior can be shaped by authority, distance, and the environment around us.We can see how ordinary people obeyed orders even when it meant causing harm. This sets the foundation for understanding other studies, like the Stanford Prison experiment, which also shows how easily people can slip into cruelty under the right conditions. Through Milgram’s experiment, conducted at Yale University, which placed participants in the roles of teachers and learners. It proved that not only people obeyed authority even when it meant harming others, but through the tone of voice that is provided by the one telling those what to do. “It is difficult to harm a person we touch…quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear… it is far easier to maltreat others if they are personal strangers…especially if we engage in rationalization processes of self-deception that serve to dehumanize them.” (A Matter of Obedience, Page 3-4) This shows how the circumstances of distance and dehumanization makes it a lot easier for ordinary people to hurt those they do not personally know. Together, these findings suggest that under the right conditions, obedience and emotional distance can push almost anyone towards evil violence. This idea is reinforced by another famous study: the Stanford Prison experiment. The Stanford Prison showed that some guards became abusive simply because the environment they were put in encouraged it and authority figures did not stop them. We as mammals through the source of nature, were created to be in groups. This natural instinct makes us more likely to follow the influence of others, especially in a group setting where there is always a leader. This often leads us to want to impress, please, or avoid angering authority figures. These experiments demonstrate that people may do harmful things in order to gain approval from those in power. “Occasionally, disputes…violating an explicit injunction against physical force…When the 'superintendent’ and ‘warden’ overlooked these incidents, the message to the guards was clear: all is well; keep going as you are.” (The Real Lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment, Page 2) This shows people can slip into cruelty behaviors and mindset, if authority figures fail to restrain them from doing anything. In fact, the danger of obedience becomes even clearer when looking beyond experiments and into real history, such as the Holocaust. Through our nature of wanting to impress our leaders/authority figures, it disconnects our brains and body from knowing what is wrong and right. But is that really an excuse to use? I read the article " How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays out in the Mind”, which questions whether obedience can truly excuse someone's actions, especially considering how far the holocaust goes down into history. Nazi used the excuse of following orders to make people feel disconnected from their actions, a defense that attempted to shift responsibility away from individuals.“In particular, acting under orders caused participants to perceive a distance from the outcome that they themselves caused…people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” (How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays out in the Mind ,Page 1) This shows how obedience lets people commit harm without fully feeling responsible. However, recognizing this disconnection does not erase the moral responsibility of their choices. Instead, it reminds us that while obedience can explain behavior, it cannot justify cruelty. The Milgram experiment suggests that human behavior can be deeply influenced by authority, distance, and the way harm is carried out. These factors reveal how ordinary people, under the right circumstances, can willingly cause pain on others without fully realizing the weight of their own actions. Obedience to authority pushes people to harm others. Most people when they are placed under the direction of someone they view as powerful (authority figures) or credible, they often silence their own moral doubts, will, and choice of decisions. The pressure to obey creates a sense that disobedience is worse than the act of harm itself. “But that same year Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, conducted a series of famous experiments that tested whether “ordinary” folks would inflict harm on another person after following orders from an authoritative figure. Shockingly, the results suggested any human was capable of a heart of darkness.”(How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays out in the Mind, Page 1) This shows that simply following authority can lead ordinary people to commit harm. What makes this even more concerning is that obedience often happens automatically, and it does not require the person to be cruel by nature. Instead, it shows how fragile our sense of morality can be when pressured by someone in power. This transitions us into another factor: distance and indirect harm. We choose to believe that when we don’t know someone personally, we could care less about them, which creates indirect methods of harm to reduce guilt and responsibility. Situations similar to this mindset happen a lot in everyday life, like for example, when bystanders refuse to step in during an emergency because they assume “someone else will help.” This type of detachment makes it easier to ignore the suffering of others, especially when there is no personal connection or face-face interaction. “Russell and Gregory also believe that the way the harm is inflicted would affect the willingness of individuals to do it…they point out that the shock generator was a technological and indirect way… rather than using “direct physical force.” (A Matter of Obedience, Page 4) this suggests people will go further when the violence feels less personal. In the end, Milgram’s experiments remind us that potential for cruelty lies not only in individuals, but in the systems and environments that shape their choices. Recognizing this is the first step in making sure obedience does not excuse harm, and distance does not allow us to forget our responsibility to others.

Post your response here.I agree that the Milgram Experiment constructed the base of psychoanalytic understanding of autocratic behavior and support for inhuman violence against marginalized communities. The idea that maltreatment of strangers can be unconsciously justified. “ Us” vs “Them” allows us to justify our actions. If we don’t know the person, we have less moral responsibility to uphold when dealing with the wellbeing of a stranger. The comparison to the Stanford experiment explores how environmental factors can influence perception and decision making. When placed in a specific environment, it can drive our decisions. When there's a popular decision we often conform to those decisions. When a certain environment pushes to do an action, we automatically assume that this action will have the least amount of consequences. I believe that the only reason that the teacher disobeyed the instructor was because they felt safe. He conformed to the other hired teachers' decision, allowing him to believe that that decision was the decision that prompted the least amount of consequences. We by nature choose things that benefit us. We disregard any moral responsibility to achieve higher status, superiority, wealth, and power. When the teacher kept electrocuting the student in the experiment they did it because they were reaping the benefits of having power.