learntoquestion ltq discussions

Questions to Consider:

Please use the following quote and questions as a guide for your post. You should also refer directly to the documentary of the Milgram experiment that we viewed as a class as well. You can choose to focus on one of the question sets, or to incorporate several of them into your response.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes: “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.”

1. Do you think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others? What do the Milgram experiments suggest about the aspects of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others?

2. Do you think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide? What are the other factors that may come into play? What else, beside the blind following of authority, contributes to some people's willingness to inflict pain on others?

3. What are some of the important factors and perhaps even personality traits that led the ‘teachers’ in the Milgram experiment to disobey the ‘experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the ‘learner’? Can we attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures? Is there danger in that as well?

Word Count Requirement: 500-750 words

Readings to Reference:

Please refer to the ideas, either using a quote or paraphrasing, from at least one of the readings in your response.

A Matter of Obedience? (Facing History and Ourselves)

Rethinking one of Psychology’s most infamous experiments (Cari Romm, 2015)

How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out in the Mind (Joshua Barajas, 2016)

The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment (Maria Korrinkova, 2015)

Rubrics to Review:

Many people attribute the Holocaust’s great extent of destruction to Adolf Hitler’s charisma and powerful, convincing methods of manipulation and mob construction. This generalization is well-supported by the Milgram experiment, with statistics proving that participants were more likely to shock the “learner” fully if the “experimenter” was nearby and providing repeated, forceful commands.

Although Hitler and the Milgram experimenter were quite different with respect to tone of voice, charisma, and overall message, the mere presence of a foreboding authority figure seemed enough to convince “good” people to do “bad” things.

Joshua Barajas’s piece on the science of obedience provides a relevant example of Hitler’s manipulation, when he quotes Adolf Eichmann’s plea that him and other Nazis were “‘forced to serve as mere instruments’” to justify his assistance in carrying out mass genocide.

If we put together the many pieces of evidence seen from Milgram’s experiments and Hitler’s manipulation of Nazis, it seems easy to conclude that ordinary people’s active participation in violence is caused by an innate tendency and feeling of necessity to follow orders, usually orders from a charismatic or powerful leader.

However, I believe that there are other reasons for popular participation in genocide or otherwise horrific acts. There are many other factors at play here.

One hypothesis that comes to mind for me is existing hatred of the oppressed group that is released by some sort of crisis, compelling someone who was otherwise seen as “good” and “normal” to commit the unthinkable. Essentially, a human shock doctrine.

In the example of the Holocaust, antisemitism was essentially the embers burning under the unlit fire of post-WWI Europe. One event, or crisis, that may have stoked the rise of antisemitism and the Holocaust was the Great Depression. Although not as widely talked about in Europe, the Depression certainly had an immeasurable effect on Germany. Germany relied on the U.S. economically in many ways and the Great Depression led to a huge recession, as well as widespread unluckiness with inflation at an insanely high level. Jewish people were the scapegoat for economic troubles, as they had been for centuries — and economic troubles and general unrest provided a perfect opportunity for blaming the Jews. Maybe this was the reason for a “good” population to suddenly start committing atrocities. A shock had occurred, and something needed to be done to rid Germany of the supposed “problem”.

When we are angry and in disbelief, we want to do something to remediate the situation. For example, when I get a bad grade on a test, I often get angry at the teacher — they graded me too harshly, I might say, or they didn’t teach me well enough. I don’t see myself as a person that is mean to teachers; in fact, I really appreciate my teachers and respect them. But when we are in a situation that doesn’t agree with our ego-concept, basically, we feel some sort of dissonance, we want to fix it immediately which often requires taking out our anger on the “logical” perpetrator of the issue.

I believe that this phenomenon causes good people to do bad things. How can we remediate this? Well, if we mitigate large shocks and crises in the first place, scapegoating and hurting innocent people might be prevented. For example, the Reichstag Fire in Germany had large significance. The shock of the fire caused Hitler to persuade the German government to enact policies which severely restricted civil liberties. How would the world be different if the fire had not occurred, or, even, if we had dealt more calmly with it?

It’s difficult to connect this to daily human behavior — something which we often see as on a totally different level than large-scale crises and genocides, but we have to start small. If humans are able to resist letting their emotions take control of them in the midst of large crises, we might be able to think more logically about if we want to conform to new laws and doctrines that come up as a result.

Although obedience to an authority figure is something that is hard to shake our innate tendency to do, logical and basic morality is something to take into account when we hear orders. It’s easier said than done — if our life and prosperity is on the line, sometimes we have no choice but to obey. We are human, and our emotions get the better of us. What may create a more moral and just society is if we learn to think with both our brains and hearts.

Though the Milgram experiment has been rendered famous for its questions raised concerning human nature, contemporary critics have since asserted that its methodology is flawed such that its findings should be re-evaluated or devalued—perhaps even both to some extent. Still, most agree that to discard its results entirely would be utterly negligent—“that even with methodological holes and moral lapses, the basic finding of Milgram’s work, the rate of obedience, still holds up,” (Romm) even if the extent to which is difficult to quantify. If Milgram’s findings are to be scavenged for even a mite truth, however, perhaps they would be helpful in answering a tangential question concerning society: can we, or should we, attempt to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures?

To answer this, we first must delineate what “traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures” are—and perhaps before then: what does it mean to disobey authority? I would posit that to disobey authority is to act in a way that succeeds in contradicting what that authority has asked of you. Note that disobedience here does require intent: it does not constitute disobedience if one performs an action that falls short of an authority’s expectations (even if that authority insists it was disobedience), so long as one truly sought to carry out an authority’s orders. We call that failure as opposed to insubordination. Therefore, it follows that “traits of people who disobey … authority figures” will first recognize an authority before intentionally defying it, as opposed to defying any and all requests by others. Therefore, it follows that “traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures” will first evaluate an authority as unethical before intentionally defying it, as opposed to defaulting to defiance for any given authority.

So what are these “traits?” As a baseline, these traits are not genetic, and can rather be learned and honed by individuals across all cultures and societies. Sociology PhD candidate Matthew Hollander once submitted that “the ability to disobey toxic orders … 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” (Romm). Under the requisites that these “traits” encompass the ability to recognize unethical authorities, defy said authorities, and be taught and learned, some phrases for these “traits” come to mind: subscribing to a counterculture; upholding virtue/ethics; possessing a strong sense of justice. These traits naturally recognize unethical authority, as their historical existence is directly linked to that of unethical behavior in the world: even intuitively, if unethical authorities did not exist, for instance, hardly anyone would need to possess a ‘strong sense of justice’ (characterized by notions of fair punishment, recompense, and salvation) in its modern sense, thus hardly anyone would possess it at all. Definitionally, these traits were born of moral vacuums in the world—the new question is: can we attempt to create societies that encourage them?

My immediate, gut reaction is ‘yes.’ In fact, I believe that many societies—including our own—already engage in this to an extent. Even written into the old notion of ‘history repeating itself’ is the implied takeaway that we should avoid such pitfalls at all costs; even written into the U.S. Declaration of Independence are clauses that grant citizens a right to rebel against an unjust government. Indeed, in many senses, our society already encourages those traits that are able to recognize and dismantle abusive authorities, though a question lingers: is there danger in that as well?

While obviously, a needlessly defiant state is intuitively prone to collapse, I would argue that—no—so long as there exist objective-enough means by which people are able to agree upon the extent to which an authority is unjust, there is very little reason for concern in teaching the “traits of people people who disobey.”

No simulation can completely accurately demonstrate people’s willingness to participate in real life violence. There’s a distant difference between a person who signs up for an experiment and follows through until the end and a person who contributes to a political movement that is centered about violence. The flaw in the Milgram experiment is that the “teacher” who was given the job of administering electric shocks knew that they were participating in a study. The average held perception of studies and experiments is that they aren’t real and that they need to follow very strict rules to be considered accurate. With this in mind it’s reasonable to think that the subjects of the experiment that continued to administer shocks all the way to the end might’ve acted differently under different circumstances with different consequences. The “teachers” in Milgram’s were told that the shocks would not significantly harm the other participant, so even though the recipient was complaining some people continued to “shock” them. In Joshua Barajas’ article titled “How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind”, he argues that “Milgram’s studies rested on a deception: Participants were instructed to administer ‘severe shocks’ to an actor, who in fact merely feigned being shocked,” Haggard said. “It’s difficult to ascertain whether participants are really deceived or not in such situations.” In a situation like the Holocaust, the violence is very real and not “required for the experiment”. Nazis participated in acts of violence or supported acts of violence because they were biased against Jews. Some people who supported the Nazi party probably wouldn’t have committed violent acts towards other people if they weren’t told to but every Nazi was biased against Jews discrimination is bad even when there isn’t violence involved.

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman once wrote, “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” This ties back to the Milgram experiment, which showed how an individual acts under the pressure of authority, and how many will be convinced to put aside their morals and follow commands instead. The documentary we had viewed in class showed how the participants, the “teachers,” felt like they were being forced to listen to commands, or even like they had no choice but to listen to authority. Despite the student showing clear signs of discomfort through several grunts, screams, and even pleas, the participant continued because the authority told them to. Despite questioning the authority, they still trusted them. Why? All because a person who they believed to be an authority figure had told them to. The question is, are people cruel by nature, or do people become cruel because a person in authority commands them to do harmful things?

The experiment shows that a lot of people have the potential to become harmful to others if they see no way out of it, or are commanded to do so. Some people are conditioned to be cruel, are encouraged to be cruel, and although they might protest against it, they may follow through with it because they’ve been commanded to. Being obedient, listening to an authority figure, allows people to distance themselves from their actions, more importantly, the consequences that follow their actions. This makes them feel like they're not to blame for their actions, or they’re not responsible for the outcome of their actions. It’s easier for people to cause harm if they know they’re not going to be blamed for doing so. The weight of their actions doesn’t personally affect them as much as it would if they were responsible for their actions. That guarantee of not being responsible allows people to do despicable things.

Milgram’s experiment doesn’t explain how mass genocides occur. People blindly follow authority; blind obedience is a big part of it all. Although other fears come to play. Fear, social conformity, stereotypes, and prejudices against certain groups all play into it. An example of this is during the Holocaust, the Nazi’s were able to portray the Jews as inferior to all. The dehumanization that Hitler created against Jews allowed people to justify what was happening against them; it allowed people not to feel as bad as they would have if they weren’t dehumanized. It’s easier to cause harm to others when they’re “bad” people or they’ve harmed others, which is why they deserve to be harmed in return. Propaganda created by the Nazis portrayed the Jewish and other groups as inferior and a threat to society. This dehumanization allowed people to ignore the violence being done to the Jews. This awful experience demonstrated the power of authority.

In the Milgram's study, not everyone obeyed; some actually stopped what they were doing and felt empathy, they felt responsible for what was going on, and even went as far as questioning the authority figure. Obedience is not automatic, but instead it is conditioned into an individual; people are less likely ot obey an authority figure when they feel empathy and responsibility. If people always reject authority, it could, of course, cause lots of chaos; we as a society do need a sense of balance. Education is an important factor in this because many people will be able to help out others when they know authority is being fair, and even when the authority figure is going too far. Lastly, the study shows that cruelty can come from anyone, even the nicest people, but it takes empathy for people to cause less harm, or even defy an authority figure.

The Milgram experiment is one of the most famous psychological experiments during its time and now, as it showcases the obedience theory and causes each of us to question how far we will follow authority. In the Milgram experiment, performed at Yale University in 1962, males of 20-50 years of age were asked to perform as a “teacher” for a learning experiment. The men ranged in education, social class, and jobs, all adding to the data of the experiment. The experiment would start out with the experimenter coming in and speaking to two men, one an actor and one the actual subject. From there they would bring the “student” into a separate room and put the “teacher” in front of an operating machine, on the wall opposite from the “student”. The premise of the experiment was to have the “teacher” read out word pairs and for the “student” to memorize and repeat back. When the student got something wrong the teacher would shock them and continue to increase the shock with each wrong answer. Now the real experiment was to see if the “teacher” would continue to “hurt” the other person over time and if they would stop the experiment from continuing. Results varied from person to person but about 50% of the “teachers” obeyed the experimenter from beginning to end and carried out the electric shocks to the highest level. When one “teacher” was asked why he didn’t try and stop the experiment, he simply blamed it on the experimenter and his constant nagging of “you have no choice,” “it is essential you continue,” and most frequently, “the experiment must continue.” Through this we see the same kind of blaming on the authority figure that was present in the trial of Adolf Eichmann, and his trials on his involvement in the planning and carrying out of the Holocaust. On another note, the participants that did refuse, can be represented as having a strong sense of self, and being able to stick with their belief of the right thing. Unlike the people who complied and had “weak” sense’s of self, the people who refused can be seen as a high point in the experiment, and that there are “good” people out there with moral strength. And so, The Milgram experiment can, to some degree, describe the thinking of these people, and show a new side to the atrocities committed. However, I do think that the experiment described in the article by Barajas, with Patrick Haggard as co-author, is a more solid representation of the whole psychological change and decision making. Some critics of Milgram's experiment found that over time the evidence in the experiment was not always the most concrete, and so Haggard's experiment does a better job. Haggard's experiments used actual shocks in his experiment, meaning that the people administering it truly understood the pain they were inflicting. This could be seen as more effective evidence because the teachers were actually aware of the pain they were causing and could be taken as a more concrete decision. Overall both experiments shed light on all the different conditions and factors that play into obedience and how each of these factors work together in the long run. Overall, both experiments give evidence that there is some truth in blaming the authority figure more than the worker bee, but this does not mean their actions are justified.

I do not believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. However, based on the Milgram experiments, I do now believe that it is much easier than one would think to be manipulated into doing so, even if you have good morals. For example, as part of this experiment, two “teachers” electrocuted “students” until they answered a question correctly on the test. The second “teacher” in the experiment wanted to stop because he heard the man complaining about his health, but the experiment leaders told him to continue. The “teacher” kept insisting on stopping, but ended up going fully through the experiment, killing the man if it were a real scenario. The leaders of the experiment convinced the man that the electrocutions were not dangerous, just painful, and also told him that if anything happened, the leaders of the experiment would be the ones responsible, anyway. These comments likely motivated the man to keep going.

As we talked about in class, the second “teacher” likely went through with the experiment because of the tactics that were used by the experimenters. First of all, the second “teacher” thought that the man was hurt, but the leaders reassured him that there was no harm. He believed as well as respected the leaders because they were some of the smartest people at Yale University. His respect for the leaders was also exemplified in the video when the second “teacher” referred to the leaders of the experiment as “sir”. He deferred to authority ( the smarter people in his view). Another tactic that was tested was telling the second “teacher” that no matter what happened, he wouldn’t be at fault. This seemed to be the biggest factor in the decision to keep going. Lastly, the experiment used small incremental increases in the severity of the commands. This meant it was harder for the “teacher” to fully realize the changes that were occurring. All of these tactics combined to convince the “teacher” to keep going with the experiment. The question, therefore, arises: Did this man have ethics and morals? As stated in the article, How Nazi's Defense of 'Just Following Orders' Plays Out in the Mind, by Joshua Barajas, “people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.”
In the video, the second “teacher” is obviously sweating, nervously laughing, and also speeding up the questions so that the guilt would be over as soon as possible. These examples show that he did have some morals, yet still went through with the experiment, potentially killing the man.

Now the real question that should be asked is: how much can one stand up to authority? The first “teacher” in the experiment, when hearing the man ask to stop, said that no matter what, he was not going through with the experiments. The leaders tried all of their tactics, and the “teacher” still didn’t budge one bit. This “teacher” had more resolve to stand up to authority. His morality may be the same as the second “teacher,” but his affinity for controversy is what varies.

50% of people tested in the experiment went through with the electrocutions. If we compare this to nazi Germany, and 50% would potentially obey, then that's all they needed to commit the mass genocide. If the leaders of the experiment could convince these “teachers” to potentially kill a man with “four dollars and thirty-nine cents”, imagine what nazi Germany did.

In conclusion, I believe that with high morals as well as confidence in oneself and not fearing controversy, one can avoid becoming a perpetrator of violence against others. This experiment was not a demonstration of morality but of the power of authority and the need to stand up to authority when necessary.

When speaking of people in general, yes, I do indeed believe that everyone has the potential to be a perpetrator of violence against others. However, it’s important to make the distinction that each individual will have their own varying degrees of susceptibility to be persuaded by others to commit harm. Some will be very easily persuaded, some will stand by their morals even if it means their death, and some are in the middle. It was very interesting to read the Bauman quote because it put the Milgram experiment in context for me and changed my perception of how we should think about forms of violence like the Holocaust. I frequently hear that phrase “How could it be done to us?” and the quote resonated with me because I now realize that everyone has the capability to do harm, especially after watching the Milgram experiment.

The results of the Milgram experiment suggest that we tend to ignore our own values because someone that “knows better” is giving us commands. It reminds me of intellectual and normative conformity, another concept that we learned in class. In the case of the Milgram experiment, the informational conformity is that the experimenter knows more than the teacher, and the normative conformity is that the teacher doesn’t want to disobey the experimenter and/or ruin the experiment. An aspect of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others is our desire to be accepted. Everyone wants to know that they are doing the right thing so that they don’t have cognitive dissonance. In the Nazi Defense article, it says, “...when people act “under orders,” they seem to experience less agency over their actions and outcomes than when they choose for themselves...” The agency over their actions then becomes part of the group, and they feel part of the group. I am very intrigued by 20th century history, particularly the Interwar Period (1919–1939), the Great Depression (1929–1941), the Nazi Era (1933–1945) and World War II (1939–1945), and as a result, I know a lot about these time periods, since I think they were some of the most important parts of human history. I know that Hitler would frequently claim responsibility for his actions when asking someone to do something. Kristallnacht was a state-sponsored massacre, so people would naturally feel that they have no responsibility since the government is telling them to do it. January 6th was incited by Trump, and I think that people attacked the Capitol because they may have thought Trump knew better (like the teacher with the experimenter). This is further emphasized by Trump’s pardoning of January 6 rioters in 2025. It sent a message that people don’t have any agency for violence.

In general, I think that the Milgram experiment does in fact explain people’s participation in various kinds of atrocities. Although the conditions might not be the same, I believe the core principles are the same. For example, during the Wannsee Conference in 1942, Hermann Göring told Reinhard Heydrich to allow for interagency cooperation in regards to the creation of a system that would be known as the Holocaust. Hermann Göring was a top level Nazi official, so the meeting attendees may have felt they were just discussing an issue that concerned their superiors, and did not think about how it would mean the murder of millions.

Im quite mixed on Milgram’s experiments, but I lean slightly more towards no. Yes, its truly tragic how groups of people watched and participated in the Holocaust, and its a big mystery as to why they did that. Were they really just evil deep down or were they simply following orders without thinking for themselves or maybe they were completely forced into doing it with no other option if they wanted to live. Its hard to to really know the exact reason, but either way its still such a massive number of people all committing that one act with little to no revolt, very little disagreement, and almost no pushback at all. Thats the part that makes it so disturbing. The lack of resistance shows that so many ordinary citizens gave into the situation around them. For me, I think most of the ordinary people who participated were just following the crowd and trying to survive in a world where saying “no” can get you killed.

People had to be at least aware of what they were doing and the harm they were causing to others, but awareness doesn’t mean you have the balls and courage to do so. They might have known it was wrong, but still went along with it. Things like serving your country, protecting your family, staying alive, and blending in with the crowd all played a major role in why the people of Germany carried out these atrocious acts. Its not to excuse them, but to understand the pressures that were put on them at the time.

That’s why I dont think the experiments really match up to something like the Holocaust. I believe the experiments were pretty one sided, because most of the people who signed up probably thought it was going to be safe and that the scientists running it knew what they were doing. At the start, no one expected they’d be pressured into shocking somebody over and over again. Yes, its questionable that they continued with the shocks even when the “learner” seemed to be in pain, but I honestly dont think that means they had evil intent or wanted to hurt someone. They trusted the present authority in the room and assumed it was fine. I think that’s very different from what Nazis did. The Nazis knew exactly what they were doing in the concentration camps and their goal was to kill. In the shock experiment, people were tricked into thinking it was safe and scientific, yeah, you can argue that the experiment still shows how far people are willing to go when they’re told to, and how much weight authority has on our choices, but i just refuse to believe its the same thing at all. You could even compare it to how a very small percentage of people in the shock experiment refused to keep going, while an estimated half a million Germans actually fled the country between 1933 and the start of the war. Some of those people even enlisted to fight for the Allies later on. So, just like the few who stopped the experiment, there were also Germans who resisted, but they were clearly the minority.

Sigmond Freud’s theory of the superego states that part of our mind is unconsciously controlled to represent societal standards. This is the embodiment of Milgram’s obedience experiment. As the teachers sit in the control seat and shock the learners, they are not acting out of choice, but rather in fear of disobeying the experimenter. The issue with this mentality is that listeners often ignore the unethical requests that are being expressed. As seen in the experiment, moral standards are thrown out the window as individuals worry more about following the rules. In order to combat this, society as a whole must be more acceptive of those who disobey unethical authority figures. However, there is a fine line for this as promoting disorderly behavior can be dangerous for the overall safety and well being of society. Still, the Milgram study does highlight the importance of those who resist unethical commands. Traits like moral courage and independent thinking were important in an individual’s decision to resist orders.

The Milgram experiment suggests that nearly everyone, in some shape or form, has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence if they are placed in the right situation. The ordinary person, when faced with forceful authority figures, may feel pressured to obey orders despite moral standards telling them not to. This shows a dark truth about human nature. We are very quick to conform to the majority, quickly overriding our empathy. The mind can be manipulated when authority figures frame us to believe that obedience is “correct” behavior.

That being said, Milgram’s experiments alone cannot fully explain the reasoning for mass atrocities. Large scale conformity and violence often involve many different factors, such as propaganda and fear. For example, during times of war, many individuals are convinced that violence is necessary for survival or justified against a perceived enemy. Blind obedience to authority plays a major role in these mass atrocities, but hatred and social pressures make the problem so much worse.

Furthermore, recent re-examinations of Milgram’s work offer both a hope for the future, but also a warning. In "Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments”, Cari Romm says “the ability to disobey toxic orders…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” (Romm). This suggests that disobedience isn’t just a personality trait, but rather a trained ability to notice when authority is being unethical. Moral education and skills training could help people overcome blind obedience.

Similarly, Maria Konnikova in “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment” argues that “while it’s true that some guards and prisoners behaved in alarming ways, it’s also the case that their environment was designed to encourage…those behaviors” (Konnikova). Thus, it’s not just that people are inherently evil or cruel, but rather expectations and societal pressures can push people into becoming someone or doing things that they normally wouldn’t do.

These perspectives strengthen the idea that not everyone has a fixed potential to become violent, but they certainly can get to that point under the right pressures. What matters is the environment that they live in and the authority figures that they are surrounded by. For societies to reduce violence and mass atrocities, they should focus not only on curbing authority figures that display abusive tendencies, but also building up systems of moral justice and empathy. People need to escape the restraints of obedience, and become morally responsible.

I think that Milgram’s experiment does truly explain part of why people participate in the horrific things that they end up participating in. The fact that the experiment ended that way shows that it is just part of human nature to get influenced in that way. I think that when you don’t exactly know what you are doing to somebody, you are way less likely to stop doing it, and I think that shows in the video. I feel like it is that part of us that just doesn’t want to deal with any responsibility or punishment for doing the wrong thing. We willingly trust things that we have been told that come from authority without stopping to think about what we are truly doing. In other countries, I have heard about ways they have dealt with this problem. It is something important that I feel people aren’t learning about, and is something that I believe should be taught and learned at a young enough age that you bring stronger morals and ideals with you through life. I learned from a German friend of a family member that in Germany, they trick college students with an assignment where they calculate for months and months on how to make a train work faster and better, calculating speed and cost in order to make the train make quicker stops. At the end of the experiment after they had made the train go as fast as possible, the professor asked them if any of them thought to question where the train was going and why. None of them did, and the professor tells them that they were recreating a train to a Nazi concentration camp. The person who I learned this from told me that this lesson has stuck with them for the rest of their life, and taught them to always question authority and their motives. That stuck with me because I feel like we need something like that in America. We need people to learn the moral consequences that can come from blind trust. I found it interesting that in the experiment, the people who were continuing with the shocks still seemed to feel bad.

I think that that relates to the article I read about the Nazi defense of just following orders. It talks about how Nazi’s claimed that they were just follow orders. That brings up an interesting point about how bad does the thing you are doing have to be before you stop and do something about it. I think the train lesson and the experiment can show that in some cases these people aren’t necessarily bad. They feel as if they want to do the right thing. They are just being heavily pressured to do the wrong thing. That’s why I think it is important to teach this because we should understand when and when not to trust authority, and we should understand when we should do the right thing that our heart is telling us to do.

We get so trapped up in potential poor outcomes for ourselves that we don’t always bother to think about poor outcomes for other people based on our actions. I think if you scale up the authority and the circumstance, a lot of people could definitely fall into the trap of becoming a perpetrator for violence and harm.

Zygman Bauman’s claim that “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it,” forces us to consider something that we don’t want to. That cruelty isn't only limited to monsters and sociopaths. It is something that ordinary people are capable of doing. It's tough to realize but the video we watched in class on the Milgram experiment makes it more apparent. Regular people still went along with the experimenter's instructions and delivered shocks that they believed were painful to another human being.

This causes us to wonder if everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. Milgram’s research points appear to be in favor of that idea. What struck me in the documentary was that these people were not happy to do this. They were clearly torn up inside. Yet they kept flipping the switch. The uneasy mix of reluctance and obedience is what Hannah Arendt meant by the “banality of evil”. Horrors are not always committed by raging fanatics but by normal people handing their judgement over to authority. Milgram’s conclusions aren't the end of the story. In her Atlantic article, Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments, Cari Romm points out that newer research complicates the picture. Stephen Reicher and Alex Haslam, for example, argue that people don't obey blindly. Instead they comply when they identify with the authoritative figure or believe in the cause they represent. In Milgram’s lab the participants saw themselves as contributing to science. That belief made it easier to keep going. When you really think about it it means that atrocities like the Holocaust are not committed because people are wired to obey but rather because they convinced themselves that they are helping a greater good.

This makes Bauman’s warning sharper. If obedience is tied to identification then it isn't just about authority forcing us. It is about choosing to see ourselves as a part of a cause. In Nazi Germany many perpetrators believed they were protecting the nation. In Milgram’s experiment they believed that they were helping advance science. Both people did not see themselves as cruel. They saw themselves as playing a role in something larger.

There's still another side to this. Romm also discusses research from Matthew Hollander which shows that resistance is possible and that it can even be learned. The participants who managed to stop the experiment often used firm direct protest strategies. The others who wanted to stop but could not lacked the right words or confidence to push back. This is important because it shows that obedience and disobedience can be shaped by context and authority. People can be taught how to resist unjust commands.

Bauman’s warning still feels urgent today. The threat is not that unimaginable horrors could arise again someday. The threat is that under the right conditions normal people can be persuaded to carry them out all over again. What makes Milgram’s experiment so scary is that it doesn’t point a finger at other people, it holds up a mirror. In that mirror we see ourselves as potential perpetrators. Once we recognize that we also recognize the ability to push back.