learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by 2233 on September 22, 2025 10:08

After watching the Milgram experiment video and seeing how it was set up and run, I do think that some people who might be seen as normal do have the potential to inflict violence and pain on others. Most people in the experiment stopped before the fake shocks got too strong, but some people kept going, which was interesting to me. One person they showed seemed to know the shocks were inflicting pain, but kept going and was chuckling at some points. I think the biggest thing that caused him to keep going was the presence of an authoritative figure. The lead psychologist kept saying it would be his fault if something went wrong, and that it was very important that he kept going. Every time the man stopped and questioned what he was doing, the lead psychologist used more pressuring language to get him to continue. After reading the article on the Stanford Prison experiment, my thoughts on whether ordinary people could inflict violence and mental pain on others. The 24 male participants were screened and deemed “normal,” split up into guards and prisoners. They were given loose guidelines, and very quickly they started to be very violent and tortured the prisoners physically and mentally. It was interesting to me that they weren’t given directions to be violent, but immediately started to do horrible things to the prisoners, and I wondered why these ordinary people started to do that. In the Stanford Prison Experiment article, it stated, “To many, the Stanford experiment underscored those findings, revealing the ease with which regular people, if given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors…. It’s said to show that, with a little nudge, we could all become tyrants”(Korrinkova 1). Although there are some doubts about how it was run, I do think it shows that ordinary people are capable of doing horrible things, especially because they weren’t directly told to hurt people, like the Milgram experiment. Besides the presence of an authoritative figure, I think some people, like David Cash, are sociopaths and don’t feel remorse for what they do, and that can drive them to inflict suffering and pain on others. I also think some people believe they won’t be blindly led by an authority figure to do things they normally wouldn’t do, but this clearly isn’t the case, as shown by the Milgram experiments. I found this quote from How the Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders interesting. Haggard’s team found that brain activity in response to this tone is indeed dampened when being coerced. Haggard’s team also used a questionnaire in the second experiment to get explicit judgments from the volunteers, who explained they felt less responsible when they acted under orders”(Barajas 3). This shows that our brain activity isn’t as strong, and we aren’t thinking as clearly when being forced, which shows why some people act the way they do when being coerced into doing something by an authority figure. In conclusion, after reading these two articles and watching the video, I think that people are more likely to do something bad if they are being pressured by a person in power.

I definitely agree that people are more likely to do something bad if they are pressured by a person in power. However, I feel like you missed a few things in the articles, most importantly that the guards in the Stanford Prison Experiment were not explicitly told to inflict cruelty on the prisoners, but it was implied. As mentioned in the article The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment, the goal from the start was to imitate not just any prison, but a brutal one, and the main researcher, Zimbardo, was looking to prove that ordinary people could turn violent if given power and exaggerated the results of his study because he was so determined to do so.

Additionally, I didn't read the Nazi article and I didn't understand the quote you gave with just the information you provided. I went into the article to find the context, and I agree that it's a really convincing piece of evidence if you give it a little more context.

Finally, your conclusion is that people are more likely to do bad things if pressured by an authority figure, but earlier you argued that ordinary people can do bad things even without an authority figure's influence (when you mention the Stanford Prison Experiment). Which is it? Do you think ordinary people can do horrible things of their own accord, but an authority figure makes it more likely?

Originally posted by anonymous on September 20, 2025 11:02

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman warned 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.” This leads us to doubt whether everyone could possibly be a violator of peace. The findings of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments suggest that on certain conditions, normal people can be led to inflict harm. In Milgram's Yale study, subjects believed they were administering increasingly intense electrons shocks to a “learner” for every wrong answer. Although the “learner” was an actor and no shocks were ever delivered, 62.5% of participants went through to the highest voltage just because an authority figure instructed them to. Milgram found physical and effective distancing was also a determining factor, when the test subject could not see or hear the learner near 100% of people would administer the strongest voltage, but when the test subject had to touch the actor in order to shock them the rate fell to around 30%. This is a demonstration that dehumanization and distance can annihilate empathy and make people cruel. Bauman himself observed that if you had to touch someone it forced you to actually see them as someone you were harming, making it much more difficult, but when you only see someone from a distance or not at all it removed the part of you that actually saw yourself as harming another person.

However, Milgram's findings do not fully explain events like the holocaust. The Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, is another example of how easily individuals who would normally be kind, caring, or completely average people easily acquire abusive behavior when placed within authoritarian structures of hierarchy. College students who were tasked with being guards in a mock prison very quickly started mistreating the “prisoners” despite the fact that they knew it was an experiment and these were not real criminals who they could claim deserved it. Similar to Milgram's experiment, the guards were not inherently sadistic people, but in the situation, having the ability to exercise power, and the absence of supervision bred cruelty. Likewise, at the Nuremberg trials, Nazis testified that they were “just following orders” mirroring the dynamic of Milgram's experiment. However historian Daniel Goldhagen argues that blind obedience does not explain the Holocaust. Perpetrators went beyond their instructions on many occasions, driven by deeply ingrained antisemitism, ideology, or hate. Germany's military and bureaucracy often worked on their own, past what they were ordered to do, in order to achieve the goals Hitler stated, developing more efficient forms of persecution without official instructions. This confirms that propaganda, peer pressure, and ingrained hate can drive violence past obedience.

Milligrams' experiment did also record a significant minority of participants that refused to go on shocking the actor. This disobedience was driven by many variables, the strongest of which were strong moral convictions, emotional responses, independent thinking, and the willingness to challenge authority in the face of social pressure. These traits are necessary for a society to have in order to avoid the beginning stages of a genocide similar to the holocaust, which will in the future lead to people going beyond obedience and into belief, as seen in the holocaust. A society instilled with critical thinking, civic responsibility, and moral courage can empower individuals to disobey invalid orders, but, as Bauman warned, instilling relentless distrust of authority can have its own risks: if everyone believes it is valid to ignore legitimate authority, then societies will fall into widespread anarchy, mob mentality, and misplaced vigilantism. The goal is to produce citizens who can tell right from wrong, and are willing to stand up for moral justice when it is applicable.

The Milgram Experiment, the Stanford Prison Experiment, and the nazi defense of “just following orders” all suggest that violence is not a monopoly of sociopaths, those who enjoy what they are doing, and “bad samaritans” but has its potential within all of us, waiting to be unleashed by the right set of conditions. Dehumanization, physical or emotional disconnect, hierarchal coercion, and eventually complete indoctrination have the ability to completely overwhelm the empathy and morality we would normally display. To understand the possibility of such an occurrence is not to accept the inevitable, instead it is necessary in order to build a society that can instill the right empathy, moral resistance to obedience, and responsibility. Bauman's observations are unsettling because they are true, the greatest danger is not that just we will be harmed, but that given the right pressures we will be the ones doing the harm.

You make a very good point about dehumanization and how that can contribute to violence. Like how it became easier for people to justify shocking the learner if the ‘teachers’ were more distant from them, as well as how it was easier for the guards of the Stanton Prison Experiment to treat the prisoners like trash because they saw them as being “lesser,” this is also seen in many mass movements throughout history. Every genocidal movement begins by taking a certain group of people and deeming them the enemy, and making them a group that is subhuman and somehow responsible for all of the problems of the time period. This is why, in addition to the traits you’ve already mentioned of critical thinking skills and a willingness to question authority (which are very important skills), care and empathy for our fellow human being, no matter their identity or background, is also an essential skill for being able to prevent these sorts of mass movements from taking hold. If people are willing to feel empathy for everyone, and will not judge them based on unchangeable characteristics, then it will be extremely hard to dehumanize entire swaths of people. That being said, even the most empathetic person is capable of falling for propaganda and being manipulated, hence why the traits you mentioned above are also important. Additionally, it’s much harder to teach kindness and empathy than it is to teach critical thinking skills.

Originally posted by BrokenTile on September 23, 2025 02:28

I think that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others when in fear of authority or as part of a mass movement, and not feeling responsible for their actions. For example, Adolf Eichmann argued that he was just a cog in the machine and was “just following orders”. Having the attitude that you’re not responsible and doing what the authority is telling you to do shifts blame off of yourself and makes you go: it wasn’t my fault, it was (insert authority figure)’s fault. The Milgram experiments suggest that when pressured by an authority figure, people might question what they’re doing, but a percentage of people will go through with it, while others might stop. If people were held more accountable, they might reconsider their actions, and to what degree they act on their violent ideas.

I think that experiments like Milgram’s actually explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities and genocide. As mentioned before in the course certain cults, like the Jonestown cult, or the Manson family. Other factors that might play a role in participation of violence and atrocities would be a sense of belonging in a group, or meaning. Or the “us vs them dynamic”, and polarization in society. There’s also a very small percentage of people who might be characterized as sociopaths who genuinely feel no remorse, the David Cash guy shown in class, but in the Stanford Prison experiment it showed that even with the brightest minds, when given power over others, could become tyrannical. Although this could be skewed due to people seeking power over others as a guard and how the researchers framed the Stanford Prison experiment to their subjects.

Some of the important factors and personality traits that led the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment to disobey the experimenters’ commands to continue to shock the learner would be having actual concern for the learner and being willing to disobey the authority figure and give up the money paid in the experiment. While you can try to create societies that value and encourage the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, I think you’ll run into the problem of people questioning authority that might not be considered unethical. For instance, recent public assassinations of the UnitedHealth Care CEO and Charlie Kirk. If we give too much freedom to question authority, you have anarchy, and anarchy leads to chaos. We still need some semblance of order in our society, especially with these increasingly polarizing times. But these experiments should be taken with a grain of salt, because these people know that they are participating in an experiment. If it were the real world and there was a strong authority figure that you had to obey, I have a feeling most people wouldn’t rebel due to fear for themselves and a desire for self-preservation. I believe that there is a major difference between situations where it is easy to disobey because it doesn’t threaten you personally, but if it did, you might see less people willing to disobey.

I agree with your thoughts. I believe that everyone has the potential to commit violent acts against another person. I liked how you used Adolf Eichmann as an example to show that people will act in terrible ways and justify it by saying, “I was just following orders”. After watching the Milgram experiment video, a lot of people have shifted their views and believe that everyone has the potential to become violent. I like how you incorporated examples of groupthink mentality/people controlled by a leader with the cult example. I also agree with your thoughts about the Sanford prison experiment. I never thought about it in the way that these highly educated people would treat other humans in that way; it really goes to show that anyone can become violent. I also think that the experiment does have some flaws. I partially agree with your opinions about the freedom to question authority and that too much of it can lead to chaos. I don’t know if those 2 killings were due to questioning authority, but rather a result of personal grievances. I think it depends on how you look at them. I appreciated how you incorporated modern references to demonstrate that Milgram’s theories and experiments remain applicable today.

Originally posted by Thequeen3 on September 22, 2025 20:38

I do believe that everyone does have the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. As much as we want to believe that this isn’t true, it very much can be. Even if you witness an act of violence and do nothing about it until after the fact, you are still a perpetrator of violence against others. Invented by Stanley Milgram in the 1960’s, the Milgram experiment showed a group of “teachers” and “learners” in a room. The “teachers were supposed to dangerously shock the “learners” if their answers were incorrect. In the end the “learners” started to be tested on whether they would help someone in need, or stay in the room when the “teacher” said so. Most of the “learners” listened to the “teachers” and ignored the person “in need”, but others stood for their morals and didn’t continue the experiment until they knew the other person was okay. What the Milgram experiments suggest is that people usually have the tendency to obey higher placed people. They do this because they believe that since certain people have a sense of authority that those people are always in the right, because they are smarter.

In The Matter Of Obedience(Facing History and Ourselves) it is described that , “It is difficult to harm a person we touch. It is somewhat easier to afflict pain upon a person we only see at a distance. It is still easier in the case of a person we only hear. It is quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear(3).” As we see this can be very true, but in the Milgram experiment it is demonstrated that emotional distance is also a fairly important reason for becoming a perpetrator against violence. In the video that we watched earlier in class, which was the real experiment, we witnessed that many started to feel guilty and responsible for anything that would happen to the person next door, because of them doing nothing to help them or stop the experiment. As we seen, one of the “learners” in the end of the experiment started to say that the “teacher” made then not help, but in reality all the “teacher” need was tell them they needed to continue and experiment, and that the “teacher” themselves would be the one responsible for anything that happened to someone. I believe that this statement from the “teacher” made the “leaner” feel less accountable for the person next door, and continued their experiment.

The Milgram experiment also suggests the aspects of human behavior that can make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others. In connection to this in The Matter of Obedience(Facing History and Ourselves) we are informed that “Milgram’s experiments provide insights that help us understand the choices and motivations of many who participated in the Nazi programs of persecution and mass murder(4).” This proves to us that it is very possible for many to willingly inflict pain to others. During the Holocaust gas chambers were used constantly. One of the main reasons they used them was for the participants in the killings of the Holocaust was to not feel guilty and not have a toll on them psychologically.

I think that this person’s most compelling argument is that of the idea that all people, if they are passive in the harm of another person, are guilty of perpetrating it. I don’t personally believe that this always applies, because there’s a bit more nuance, where it can be dangerous to get involved. Additionally, there can also be the human psychology portion, though it doesn’t completely absolve you of responsibility. I do definitely agree with the idea that with a stronger human connection, it becomes much harder to allow or perpetrate any violence against the other people. “Emotional distance” as a way to make that violence easier was a good point; most leaders and just societies as a whole had chosen to use this when taking actions you wouldn’t be proud of. I think that that sort of connects to a few of my own thoughts, that there’s a sort of depth before you can truly distinguish how much blame you hold when you complete an action.

For this post, I think there were a few parts that were rushed; the grammar made some parts difficult to understand. I think there could have been a few more parts that were just this person’s opinions. I liked their strong stance on the guilt of the people involved in attacking others.

Originally posted by forest-hills-station39 on September 22, 2025 10:25

I do think that, under the right circumstances, anyone has the ability to perpetrate violence against someone else. Now, those “right circumstances” are different for everyone, of course. The Milgram experiment shows the two most common powerful motivators for people to impact violence on another: the pressure of an authority, and the distance, either emotional or literal, to the person receiving the violence. An under-discussed part of the Milgram experiment is that the more the subject had to physically see and interact with the “student,” (I.E. instead of hearing the student through a wall, they were in the same room, even having to physically touch them to administer the shock), the less likely it was for a person to push through to the end. The article “How the Nazi’s Defense of ‘Just Following Orders’ Plays out in the Mind” by Joshua Barajas demonstrates that when told to follow an order by a higher authority, people are less likely to think critically about their actions and, in fact, feel more distant from them. On a larger scale, this is indicative of how to get a people comfortable and complacent in genocide: get them to stop viewing the “other side” as human; if you feel distant from the actions you take, as if they are not your own, and don’t think of the people impacted by your actions as people, you can commit violence or be complacent in violence without having to think about it. This is why it is important to be very, very wary of anyone trying to tell you that a specific group of people (based on political beliefs, ethnic identity, religious belief, etc.) are “lesser than” or somehow inherently evil. Just as the physical distance from the learner made the subjects of the Milgram experiment more likely to commit violence, emotional distance can do the same.

The only real personality trait that can make people disobey the words of the experimenter in this experiment, and more broadly, the personality traits that allows people to disobey negative authority is confidence and the ability to think for oneself. When people don’t feel confident in themselves, they will defer to someone who they think does have this self-confidence. After all, all good leaders have to have a certain amount of charisma, which comes from confidence, or else people would never follow them. In our current society, people often feel like cogs in a machine, working hard, long hours for little perceived benefit. When someone, then, comes along and says they have all the answers to making their lives feel worth living again, it’s no wonder why so many people get swept up. I don’t have a clear-cut solution to this problem, but there has to be a way that the current system of labor can work while allowing people to keep their spirits, for lack of a better term. The other personality trait, the ability to think for oneself and question authority, has a much simpler solution: school. Right now, lower education is very formulaic: follow the agenda on the board, do the reading, take notes, remember to study for the standardized test. There’s very little time to question the narrative the textbooks are teaching, and often, dissent is punished. This isn’t how it should be. People should feel comfortable disagreeing with the narrative presented in class. My APUSH teacher last year did a good job at this; he presented both the College Board’s view of history, his own interpretation, and encouraged us to disagree with both and come to our own conclusions. Of course, this doesn't work with classes like math that are based on objective reality, but for classes like English and History, where things are malleable and up to interpretation (within reason, of course), we should be encouraged to question the narrative we are being presented with. This allows us to carry a healthy skepticism within the rest of our day-to-day lives when we’re older, something essential to being an informed citizen. Otherwise, we’d just be blindly following the orders we are given without giving it any real thought, just like some of those participants in the Milgram experiment, and the many, many people who have been complacent in mass government violence and genocide throughout history.

The most interesting idea for me was your connection between our formulaic education system and a population's susceptibility to blindly following authority. I completely agree with you. It's intriguing because it reframes the purpose of education. Instead of just being about learning facts, subjects like history and English become crucial learning grounds for developing the skepticism needed to be an educated citizen. It's not about memorizing dates, but about learning how to question the narrative you're given.

I have the same view on this topic, especially about how dehumanization and distance make violence easier to happen. The entirety of the Milgram experiment is a terrifyingly clear example of that.

The only thing I might add is the power of inclusion dynamics, whether to be on the in or the out. Sometimes, the pressure to conform and blend into your own social group can be just as powerful as any demand from a single figure of authority. But I think your central argument is perfect, that encouraging students to question things and form their own opinions is one of the best defenses there is against repeating the dark parts of our history. When people start to think for themselves, questioning everything they do, it is almost impossible for mass groups to form when people don't inherently agree with the ideas. Overall, great response.

Originally posted by shower on September 22, 2025 10:09

I truly believe that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others. As much as we believe we wouldn’t do it, we have never been in the position where we have all the power and with no consequences. From the Milgram experiment you can see how even though some people are hesitant, ultimately in the end they end up following through with their orders. This is mainly for the reason that they are unsure and will follow orders from someone with higher authority, as long as they sound like they know what they’re saying. I believe this connects all the way back to the Holocaust where people are “just taking orders” since they’re actions will have no effect on their own life. I think we underestimate how we would feel given all that power, which is why some people are willing to take it to an extreme level. In the article I read about the Milgram experiment titled, A Matter of Obedience, an interesting quote on perpetrators in the Holocaust states, “While many acted in response to orders from authority figures, some perpetrators chose to go beyond the orders they were given. Others chose to act out of their own hatred for their own material gain without being asked to do so (page 4).” What I think of this is that when given this great power, we no longer feel any remorse for the innocent people as we can just do whatever we want with no consequences. Like I mentioned before, if we were actually in their shoes, maybe we would have done the same thing. Going back to the Milgram experiment, we see how some people went on with the shocks regarding how they thought the other person's health was. Although some were hesitant to move on, when the instructor said “you are required to continue” or “I will take full responsibility,” the person immediately goes back to the experiment because his actions no longer affect him and only the person on the other side. There is another quote I found interesting in the text I read that says, “When Milgram described this experiment to a group of 39 psychiatrists, the psychiatrists predicted that one participant in 1,000 would continue until he or she delivered the most severe shock, 450 volts. In reality, 62.5% of participants did (page 2).” This goes back to putting yourself in other people's shoes where these psychiatrists thought that people would react a certain way just because it is the right thing to do. We may think we would act differently until we are actually in that situation with all that power. We are so easily controlled into believing someone as long as they sound smart. This is why I don’t respect people who basically worship celebrities or people of power because they believe everything they say. That's our biggest problem is we see Donald Trump or Kamala Harris and we go with everything one of them says. All they promote is us turning on each other so they can benefit themselves. There's no problem in supporting someone because you agree with a lot of what they say. It is a problem however to agree with everything they say. That is impossible as we are all different as human beings.

I agree with many of this person’s points & used a number of them in my own Learn To Question post. In my opinion, their most compelling argument (which I agree with) is that when in a position where a “higher” authority is giving us orders, no matter how outlandish they might be or how much we like to think we would be able to resist, people succumb to what they are asked. No one can truly say with 100% certainty that they would refuse to be influenced until they are in a real situation that this occurs in. This is interesting because as people we tend to think highly of ourselves when in reality we blindly follow anyone who is seemingly smarter. I found the views in this response, such as the desensitization one feels when given a large amount of power and the hesitancy of the people almost disappearing when the responsibility is taken off their shoulders, in many other posts. I suppose this speaks to the likemindedness of our class and how we are able to recognize the effects such experiments display. As far as mechanical errors I fail to notice any, but regarding the depth of the discussion, they could have gone a bit deeper into their connection of the experiment to the Holocaust. Lastly, I think the last few sentences are very powerful and eye opening, and overall I think this post was effective & well thought out.

Originally posted by Zen Zebra on September 23, 2025 21:46

The diction our society uses (i.e. “violence”) and whom/to where, is a great indicator of the views of our powerful and influential. Is animal cruelty “violence”? Is destruction of property “violence”? Is self defense “violence”? What if it’s “self defense” against a brutal police force? Are protests, sit-ins, demonstrations “violence”? Is physically preventing the construction of a police training facility set to be built on an endangered keystone ecosystem “domestic terrorism”? (real thing; look up Cop City Atlanta). Is calling for the eradication of an entire class of people, even if you don’t personally get your hands dirty, “violence”. Any position on any of these can and has been argued (my answers: yes, no, yes but justified x2, no x2, yes). For the majority of people, there is some level of escalation that warrants a form of violence, but many also ignore, dismiss, or forget systemic violence. This is my long way of saying: what type of, for what reason, to whom, violence is directed can be just a matter of perspective. With outstanding conditions, charisma, and/or coercion, anyone can “become the perpetrator”. As the Milgram experiments suggests, one doesn’t even have to deeply believe in their act of violence to participate. However, I don’t think experiments like his fully explain this phenomenon. The “teachers” in Milgram’s experiments express concern and plead the researchers for “permission” to stop. even if they inevitably don’t. Many participators in violence don’t show this same concern for their violence’s target(s). The simple fact of holding a position of authority and the influence of that authority’s violence certainly contributes, as the Stanford prison experiment suggests. But I also think it’s a kind of survivor bias. Violence is self-selecting; it has a way of perpetuating itself, embedding itself into our social and political lives. For better and for worse, Violence poignant and sensational; a shooting will make the news more than a mutual aid drive would. Violence breeds violence; we are what we eat, and what we eat is news of all of society's woes. We need to think less destructively and more constructively; less about our problems and more about our solutions. Prefiguration: building the new within the shell of the old (i.e. enact as much of our ideals as possible within our means and conditions). All authority should be challenged, and all hierarchical power structures should be fought against. To create a society that values this, one must create systems and power structures within it that embody these values. Where does power truly lie? Take a look at representative democracy for instance, does power truly lie with the people. By what means do the people directly have a say in the policies that affect their lives? If a township wants to design their roads to be safer, it has no authority and has to defer to the FHWA. If the people of a city are overwhelmingly against the construction of a police training facility in an endangered forest, they lose to the authority that rules over them (see Cop City again). We all have power; if your body is of functioning order and you have the ability to acquire food, you have the power to eat. If you have a vehicle and the ability to operate and give it fuel, you have the power to travel. Power structures are systems and accrue power. In a republic, power and obedience is given from the voters/people to the representatives, and enforced by the police and justice systems. In mass movements, power and autonomy is given from its members to its ideals, which may be enforced or directed by a leader, and enforced by all those psychological structures that keep people in line.

In my opinion, the most compelling aspect of this is the author's interpretation of violence, and the commentary on what violence means in modern society. I also enjoy the commentary on how the violence performed by an authority figure is influential to those who follow them, which is a good correlation to the Nazi Party and how Hitler's beliefs influenced his subjects. I also mentioned the Stanford prison experiment in my writing, and I think we used this to emphasize our points in a similar way. My views feel pretty similar to this person's views, although I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we have 100% control in whichever country or group we live in. Some people do not have the means to leave their country if things don't go well, meaning that they have to adapt. In addition, I definitely agree that the source of power that a dictator like Hitler has comes from the people, but with that being said I don't necessarily believe that they should be at fault for 100% of dictatorships. I also really enjoy how many questions the author puts in their writing, and how that helps express their main points. I don't have much to say about how this post could be improved because I think it's quite good as is.

Originally posted by coolturtle on September 21, 2025 15:39

Through careful analysis of the Milgram experiments, I think that Milgram explains ordinary people’s participation in violence to a certain extent. In certain situations, people naturally look for an authoritative figure. This helps them find a sense of certainty and command that is easy to obey, regardless of how harmful that action is. The idea that humans are socialized to obey authority and internalize it is known as the obedience theory. One of the many notorious examples of this theory is Adolf Eichmann, the organizer of the holocaust, who wrote that he was “forced to serve as mere instruments” to Hitler’s extremist ideas. Milgram’s experiment showed just how impactful positions in charge can be on a person’s decisiveness and mindset. I do think that the extent to which that person goes to obey that authoritative figure depends on their own accord. In Joshua Barajas’s article, "How Nazi’s Defense of “Just Following Orders” Plays Out In the Mind,” he describes a sense of disconnection from one’s actions when complying with orders given by another person, specifically that of authority. When thinking of Adolf Eichmann, the article emphasizes a reduced sense of responsibility because the action becomes more passive than it is direct. The extent to which Eichmann’s actions go is questionable. I believe that there are outside factors that contribute to just how much a person is willing to obey a position in charge. However, when a person of power is persistent and monotone with the way they command orders, it naturally gives our minds the sense that they know what they’re doing. The rationality of our decisions begin to fog, prioritizing the order in our heads. Eichmann’s decisions to kill millions of innocent lives simply cannot be attributed to the passiveness of Hitler’s orders but the lack of sympathy he held. I think there is a certain line for one to obey orders that lie beyond direct authority. As humans we should be aware and conscious of our actions. I do also think it is difficult to grasp the scope of pressure each individual faces from an authoritative figure. On the other hand, humans are always given a choice whether to commit an action or not. The externalities of our decisions matter just as much as the order given. I personally believe that with the right social conditions and authoritative pressure, anyone can be a perpetrator of violence. On the other hand, I think the lengths to which they execute that violence differentiates from each person. The Milgram experiments showed that most subjects had sympathy but they lacked decisiveness. I always say, “to each their own,” and in reality it is ultimately up to the mental fortitude of the individual that influences their obedience to an authoritative figure. Often we struggle to create a society that values and encourages the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures. Part of the struggle is the diversity of beliefs in each society. Factors such as individual identity, family traditions, and internalized values prevent that sort of movement. I think on one hand that is what makes society so unique. The individualistic beliefs of each person add a new perspective because not everyone comes from the same background. On the other hand, it only takes a person to create significant influence on others.

The Milgram experiments are a showcase of the natural human tendency to conform to authoritative figures. However it does not justify in any way the mass violence of many figures such as Adolf Eichmann. Humans lose a sense of responsibility when given the opportunity to unintentionally pass the blame onto others. Furthermore, the action of inflicting pain on someone becomes more passive when under the directions of someone else. On the other hand, this idea contradicts the actions of mass violence because of the scale in which those actions were committed.

Post your response here.

The most compelling thing in my peers' response was the idea that the effectiveness of the manipulation from authority figures is based on mental fortitude. In my opinion, I think that it has a multitude of factors and that mental fortitude is certainly one of them. However, I don’t think that it is true to say that it is “ultimately up to the mental fortitude of the individual” because I think that it is more nuanced than that. While in some cases, yes, this is true, but for a great many more it is false. I think that even stubborn and driven people, who have an incredible mental constitution, can succumb to manipulation and harmful psychological trends because they simply don’t know it is happening. In my opinion I think that it comes down to the leader and how good they are at purpetrating harmful ideologies. While Adolf Hitler was an objectively evil person, it is wildly intriguing to see how he penetrates the mind of the populous and seizes followers into his ideology. This coupled with other societal fears, made it so that everyone in Germany supported him. This can be seen in many other cases, but I don’t think that it relies mostly on the mental fortitude of the individual.

Originally posted by lemonloaf on September 22, 2025 22:59

A large part of what makes humans susceptible to becoming the perpetrators of violence against others is heavily influenced by whether they are going to be responsible for it. If human actions don't have consequences, they are more likely to act immorally because they will not be held accountable for it by society. It is also a matter of clearing their conscience of any guilt they would have if they were held responsible for said violence. Yes, I think that the Milligram experiment does display a good representation of ordinary people's active participation in mass violence because it shows that with the right coercion and mental manipulation, anyone can inflict pain on any other person. After all, they feel that it is necessary. A lot of these mass genocides were led by dictators, saying that these mass casualties were required to achieve a bigger goal. People can be blindsided by this larger goal, failing to recognize its impact on others. The circumstances people are put under also determine how willing they are to inflict pain on other people. As Maria Korrinkova puts it in her article titled “The Real Lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment,” she states, “ Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities, it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior.” In these experiments, you are given two options: being the one who inflicts pain or the one who experiences the pain, and any human would instinctively choose to be the one who inflicts pain out of survival. This also reveals humans' true nature and how greed can distort our perspective on other matters. It's easy for people to inflict pain when put in this circumstance because they would rather do that than be the one who is getting hurt. Another significant part of these experiments that reflects real-life genocides is that these perpetrators of violence are given a choice to act upon it against people they don't know. The experimental results would differ if it involved harming people they knew and cared about. It’s harder for humans to feel remorse for people whom they have no connection to. This ties back to the idea that humans are more willing to inflict violence if there are no consequences for it. Inflicting pain or violence on people you are familiar with now interferes with your ability to move forward in life, knowing you have the capability of hurting the people you know. The “experimenter" in the Milgram experiment had a monotone voice, suggesting that everything was going according to plan despite the learner yelling in agony. This tells us that the “teacher” is willing to go by anything the authority says as long as they are confident in their “knowledge”. With the right tone and reasoning, coercion can be much easier, especially when it is inflicted upon people with lower educational backgrounds.

Post your response here. The most compelling idea in this response is that people become perpetrators of violence when blame is shifted off of them for the outcome. I agree with this idea as it is easy to feel unconnected with something like this when you aren't holding any accountability for it. I like how you talked about how people are often blinded by a bigger goal that they are manipulated to think is correct. I personally wrote about this same topic, and I also agree that if a group were to choose whether to inflict pain or to have pain inflicted on them, they would choose the first option. My own views on this topic directly correlate with your writing. Greed is a very important factor when considering inflicting violence, as it's easier to pass it off to someone else. Some peers also focused on the Stanford Prison Experiment, and they talked about how easy it is for people to lose their moral compass when given a position of power. I think that your post is already very strong, however I believe that you could go more in depth about how a person in power’s presentation or tone can influence someone to listen to them. Overall, your response clearly highlights how human behavior can be manipulated into acts of violence and is very thought provoking.

Originally posted by fifiisqueen12345 on September 23, 2025 21:42

Everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence. Based on the Obedience Theory, as well as the Stanford Prison experiment, I have gathered that based on how people perceive their own actions, and the basis as to which their actions are presented to them, humans are more likely to follow what a figure they view as authority commands them to do, disregarding what the receiver of the action will feel, or think, due to a lack of personal responsibility unto the person following the command. Considering the Milgram experiments tests, the Milgram experiment suggests that humans need to know they will not be responsible for the harm they willingly inflict onto others, and have someone else to blame, such as a figure of authority. In an article on the Milgram experiment by Joshua Barajas in 2016, he states that “...people actually feel disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders, even though they’re the ones committing the act.” (Barajas 1). Beside following authority blindly, I would say a person's self-esteem plays a part in whether or not they feel inclined to obey a figure of authority. The experiment reflects that if people have a higher education and self-esteem, they are more likely to think about what they are doing and imply a more personal consequence of their actions onto themselves, these people are less susceptible to peer pressure and stand on their beliefs. However, people without a high education and who have lower self-esteem are more likely to immediately obey the figure of authority, instead of questioning their actions because they already think lowly of themselves and think that their “commander” knows more than they do. These factors all contribute to whether or not ordinary people will inflict harm on others. Which leads into the next topic.

Ordinary people actively participate in violence, mass atrocities and genocide because of what I think are two main social psychological theories, Groupthink and the Obedience Theory. If someone has a charismatic personality—one that wills people to listen to them— and a strong sense of self and beliefs, people in need of a community will look to that person and follow their lead. Which silences their own morals and choices. Due to the fact that they are in a group of people who are following the same actions, the feeling of their actions become impersonal and they are able to rationalize what they are doing by saying, “I was just following orders,”. This can be seen during the Holocaust, famously Adolf Eichmann, the Holocaust organizer wrote that he was “...forced to serve as [a] mere instrument…” (Barajas 1). This quote I think really blends in well with the Obedience Theory. As we can see Eichmann projects all of his responsibility as the one who is physically committing the actions onto his superiors because “they were the ones in charge”. Any ordinary person who is able to follow orders, under certain circumstances such as how they take to peer pressure and how solid they are in their own beliefs have the ability to actively participate in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. We can also factor in personalization. The people committing these atrocities don't usually personally know the people they are committing these actions against. This creates impersonality and makes the victims an “it” instead of an actual person, dehumanizing the victims and making the offender feel less bad, justifying their actions.

In any case, important factors we need to consider in the “teachers” who had stopped shocking the students during the Milgram experiments were their education level, their social status, as well as their self-esteem. I think these factors were the most prevalent during the experiment as people with a higher education level are more likely to question authority and their actions, contrasting against people who have a lower self-esteem who don’t question authority as often. Which brings me to my last point, as a society, I think we have to some extent created spaces in which the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures are valued. This may be reaching but I think a large example of this is the Civil Rights Movement. A group of people (used loosely) was able to question and rebel against an unethical and unjust authority figure (the government), even while other people—who arguably held the same traits as the followers listed earlier—were blindly following authority figures. In the future I do think we can work towards creating a society in which people largely value the traits of people who disobey unethical authority figures, but in the environment that we are in today, I do not think that will happen any time soon.

I think the most interesting statement from this is that people need to know they will not be responsible for the harm they willingly inflict onto others, and have someone else to blame. I agree 100% with this idea. In the documentary we see one of the participants start to blame the scientist and downplay the level of their own involvement. I think it's interesting because it is related to what we talked about in class with cognitive dissonance. Shifting the blame off of themselves is a common defense mechanism to protect their self esteem and to feel less guilty. It also serves to justify why they did something even if it goes against their own morals. My views on the subject are similar to this person’s regarding why people feel compelled to listen to an authority figure over their own better judgement. In other posts there are a lot of people who also agree that people have the potential to become perpetrators of violence in many ways. Most agree on the fact that pressure from authority can cause people to commit violent acts. I also agree with this. However I disagree with the point made that people will listen to a charismatic leader and follow them despite their own personal morals and beliefs. I think that part of this is true, but that the supporters of these charismatic leaders share the same beliefs that the leader talks about and they follow the leader because it reinforces those beliefs.

Originally posted by ybmiayitsakotwi3 on September 23, 2025 23:02

The Milgram experiment doesn’t actually explain the involvement of everyday people in violence. The experiment made me think about two things, one being that there is a dark side in some people that appears hidden until given permission to act on it. The second being that most people aren’t violent but are used to submitting to power. Though we often witness people commit senseless crimes, this experiment to me shows an example of what I would call involuntary -voluntary violence. The thing that differentiates us from the harm we’ve done to have peace of mind. From the moment we were born into this world we are taught to follow the orders of those above us, to not question those of higher authority. We are told what we should and shouldn’t say or do, and forced to trust that we aren’t being led astray. In the documentary of The Milgram Experiment the “teacher” continues to induce different volts of electric shock to the “learner”, even after learning of his heart condition and hearing him yell for help. It is only after the “learner” stops responding do we see them stop and begin to worry. But the scientist’s reassurance allows them to keep going with the feeling that it’s part of the experiment. I believe that anyone in this situation would probably continue after hearing a scientist- who you assume has done this experiment multiple times and is licensed in their field of work wouldn’t allow or cause you to actually injure someone fatally. While this doesn’t JUSTIFY the bad act committed or emit the teacher from his consequences, it is important to think about why he was compelled to listen to the scientist, even though he felt what he was doing was wrong. One reason could be that in some situations we find it easier to hurt others when it is being ordered to us by someone else, because when things do go south we resort to putting the blame on that person rather than accepting what part we played in the situation. In Josua Barajas How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, the Nazi’s attempt to justify the millions of killings they’ve done as “just following orders”. This mindset allows the offender to separate themselves from the situation by arguing that they aren’t playing, they’re only pawns in the game. Another thing that The Milgram experiment has taught me is that we not only use the obedience theory to save ourselves from the product of our actions, but also to free ourselves from the guilt of knowing you have harmed that person. Like how in class we spoke about the gas chambers used to kill jews, this act of mass violence was so easy for them to commit because they didn’t have to come face to face with the people they were killing, therefore erasing the idea that they were responsible for these deaths and hurting people by not allowing it to sit on their conscience. Which I think leads to a fair point that we should stray away from the norm of completely obeying the authority just because of their position, that we should ask questions when we want to know what we are being ordered to do and why. But it is also important to consider how this could be conflicting, leading to an even bigger problem of people feeling that they always have the choice to obey or disobey the law. The glue of our society.

Reading this reflection, I completely agree with this person’s statement. They stated that “most people aren’t violent, but are used to submitting to power”, and I think that this is a really interesting way to think about Milgram’s experiment. Most people would consider people who do bad things as “bad people”, and people who do good things as “good people”, when realistically that's not necessarily true. Like this person said in their reflection, we are taught to listen to directions given to us by people who are older, and may know more than us. This results in people finding themselves in situations that may harm others. I also like how this person was able to compare this ideology to the Nazi’s, and how most would say they were “just following orders”. It goes to show how much power people can have over us, and how we try to justify our actions to make us feel better about ourselves. While my argument was slightly different, I strongly agree with the points this person made in their reflection. I can tell it was thoroughly thought out, and they were able to compare our notes and discussions from class, and apply it to the outcomes of the Milgram experiment and life in general.

Originally posted by IliaElMatadorTopuria on September 23, 2025 18:29

I think that everyone can become a perpetrator of violence regardless of our learned behavior throughout our lives. Especially when put in a place of power, I think that it is inevitable that some corruption, violence, or wrongdoing is committed. In the Milgram experiment we see how specifically combined with pressure from authority and social norms, this violence is present, and also explored more by any given individual. In the Milgram experiment we see that people naturally follow social norms and orders regardless of the effect on others. Ordinary and non-violent people alike intentionally hurt others in the experiment. Regardless of the true nature of the experiment, that the actors were okay, it still reveals how people seem to naturally follow orders. Given this, I think that everyone has the capacity to commit heinous acts, whether deep within themselves or otherwise, it is still there. Thus, I think that given the means, anyone can become a perpetrator of violence against others. The Milgram experiment shows us how easy it is for us to be manipulated into doing such heinous acts. It suggests that we are predisposed to being subject to manipulation by authority figures in our lives. In How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind by Joshua Barajas, he lays it out clearly stating that when people act under orders, they have less agency and control over their actions. This shows that there is a reduced responsibility when following orders. He even goes to state that people in charge should be held more accountable for the actions they compel others to do if this is true. This suggests that the Milgram experiment shows us that people simply feel less responsible for their actions when they are under orders. This is echoed in Nazi Germany where many people justified their actions in an attempt to save face by saying that they were “just following orders.” Now, there is no justification for the horrible acts committed by the Nazis, bottom line. However, this statement gives us insight into how the brain almost loses itself when following orders. In addition to many other psychological factors including manipulation by propaganda and forced groupthink, the Nazi party was able to forcibly change the German population into tools for horror. This example shows how ordinary people, when morality is concealed by outside factors, have the capability to commit violence. Importantly, this does not mean everyone is a murderer or okay with heinous acts like that. Disregarding the select few genuine sociopaths, this suggests that a lot of horrible acts committed can be partially attributed to the environment as well as the perpetrator. Additionally, it is important to say that the line between cold-hearted killer and average citizen is not as concrete as you may think and that it is wildly dynamic. At the heart of everyone, I believe that there is good and bad, which shows outwardly or takes over is based on a great many factors. What the Milgram experiment shows us is that we are susceptible to that bad side rearing its head. I think given different circumstances, the opposite can be achieved as well, and that by harboring a positive environment we can coerce similar actions.

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post would be how anyone could be a perpetrator of violence despite our backgrounds. I agree that most people try to follow orders and often rationalize their decisions through confirmation bias, regardless of whether they were right or wrong.

My peer mentions in “Just Following Orders” that when acting under someone else's order, we often shift blame and blame others. In the Milgram experiment, participants felt less responsible for their actions when shocking other people because they were instructed to do so by the experimenter.

For the most part, I mainly agree with my peer that most people aren’t completely evil and are often just following orders, with the exception of a disturbed few. I also agree with the part about there not being that much separating someone from a cold-blooded killer; however, it all depends on circumstance. Most people don’t have the heart to, in my opinion, unless under special circumstances. I differ on the point that everyone would commit some form of wrongdoing when put in a position of power. Most people probably would, but to varying degrees.

I think that my peer could elaborate more on propaganda and how it affects people, especially in influencing actions they would otherwise not commit.

Originally posted by ABC123 on September 23, 2025 18:18

Not everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence, but many do. The Milgram experiment demonstrates that some individuals are willing to inflict pain on others when instructed by an authority figure, which reveals human tendencies to obey even in situations that conflict with personal morals. If you look at this on a more detrimental scale, considering Nazi leaders and other cult “second in command” type of people, we can see that even though they aren’t the main overseer like the experimenter was in the Milgram experiment, they were still willing to carry out harmful acts. These acts often stemmed from a similar obedience to authority and detachment from their own responsibility, as the teachers in the Milgram experiment did. This detachment from personal responsibility seems to play a key role. It was specifically targeted in the experiment by separating the teacher and student into different rooms. This theory has not only been used to examine higher-level Nazi leaders, but also lower-level concentration camp soldiers. The entire gas chamber design exploits the fact that you can’t see or really hear it happening, no gunshot sounds, no views of people crying, nothing, just a building with people in it. The personal responsibility and the regular human tendency to preserve life were specifically pushed to the back of the mind. I think the factor often not taken into account is the idea that if orders are not followed in an authoritarian rule like Hitler with the Nazis, your own life is possibly at risk. If you don’t follow orders, you get killed, and someone else just does your job. Possibly the only thing that could make people resist the orders is their own morals, and I don't believe that morals are worth more than their own lives.

Another piece of the puzzle is greed for power. It might not be strongly applicable in the Milgram experiment, but when you're a higher-up in an organization like the Nazis, power is at the tip of your fingers. Whether you’re power-hungry and the decisions you are told to make give you that validation of power, or you have hopes for more power and a climb up the ladder, it definitely plays a role in people's decisions. If you’re a Nazi leader and you have the assumption that there's no way the Nazi’s lose the war, if I stay in power, I'm both safe and have a strong role in society, but if I leave and run away now, I will be replaced, and wanted for some sort of treason my whole life. It can be turned not into a moral dilemma, but into one of life or death. Do you truly hate the Americans, or do you just cherish your own life? Now, the probability that this is actually the thought process of some Nazi leaders is probably pretty low. They probably were all straight-up, evil, cold-blooded killers, but we weren’t in their shoes; we didn’t have Hitler overseeing our every move, and we weren’t scared for our lives.

Post your response here.

I think the idea that not everyone can become a perpetrator of violence is really interesting, especially if it’s a belief that you stand on disregarding perspective as well as situation, or if you’re just regarding violence in a specific way. I would personally disagree with the idea that not everyone can become a perpetrator of violence, but I do agree with the idea of factoring into the Obedience Theory people being scared for their own lives and following orders then, as well as (how I interpreted this), setting aside morals at the fear of your own life. This is a very compelling idea, “It can be turned not into a moral dilemma, but into one of life or death”, which I think is arguable because I think our morals are what helps shape us as people and although they can change, many people have died at the cost of their morals. This makes me wonder like if a classroom full of ordinary people were faced with the decision to commit an act of violence against someone else, or be threatened with their lives, who would commit the act of violence, and would it be just because they cherish their own lives or is it because everyone has the ability to commit an act of violence. As well as if there is a scale to our morals that we can follow at whatever level whenever we please. I feel like I understand the point you are trying to make, but please correct me if I am wrong and explain it more because I am genuinely interested.

Originally posted by Jeff on September 23, 2025 18:46

Zygmunt Bauman’s reflection that “the most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust... was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it,” connects directly to the questions raised by Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. The documentary footage of ordinary men showing concern, but continuing to administer what sounded like extremely painful shocks, is so disturbing because it confirms Bauman’s fear. The experiments show that the capacity for cruelty is not limited to a small number of individuals, but is in many of us, waiting to be activated by specific situations. However, this theory is a bit more complex than simply demonstrating a human tendency to blindly follow authority. A deeper analysis, backed by newer interpretations of Milgram’s work, reveals that factors such as group identification and psychological distance are more significant in explaining our cruel actions.

This terrifying idea is exactly what the Milgram experiments seemingly supported on the surface. When put in a room with a person of authority in a lab coat (a scientist), 62.5% of participants were willing to give shocks up to a deadly 450 volts. The documentary shows their internal conflict as they protest, question the experimenter, and show visible signs of distress, but most people still go along with the commands. This tells us that when a strong authority is there, it can take over someone's morals. This creates a situation where the participant’s main concern shifts from the student’s well-being to reducing their own stress caused by defying the scientist in the lab coat. This shows how ordinary citizens could become active participants in actions they wouldn't typically support.

You wouldn't expect people to be internally conflicted and stressed out if they were just passively obeying orders. The idea of “just following orders" is incomplete. A more convincing idea is that it's not about obedience, but about identification. You must take into consideration that the participants had to choose who to side with. Do they side with the scientist from Yale, or with the guy screaming in the other room? The people who continued with the shocks weren't hypnotized; they chose to believe in the experiment and saw the scientist as a trustworthy leader for a good cause. This changes the argument from mindless rule following to active, engaged behavior, which is a more disturbing reason for why people do terrible things.

So, how does someone psychologically get to a place where they can do that? It happens through a strong sense of detachment. The research shows that when you act under orders, your brain experiences a reduced feeling of control. Your actions start to feel like passive movements and not things you fully chose to do. This creates an emotional gap between you and your actions, so you don't feel like you're doing the harm. When putting together that disconnection with a strong belief in a leader's goals, ordinary people tend to do horrific things. Milgram’s experiment doesn't tell us that we're all robots, but that our choices are shaped by who and what we follow.

After reading this response, I do agree with the points that are being made. It is true that people tend to have cruel tendencies and when given the chance most people will act on it. This person said “the capacity for cruelty is no limited to a small number of individuals, but is in many of us, waiting to be activated by specific situations,” and this is a very interesting point because time and time again it has been shown that humans wilkl go back to their “cruel” and “animalistic” ways once their life is put on the line, or the person is in a scary situation. It was interesting how this person said this because many mass movements are violent and horrible, but it is still people doing these actions. No Nazi 10 years before would think that they woule be a part of something like that but in the end they were which can add on to the idea of the writer. Another point I agree with this fact that the obedience theory is not only about listening to a higher authority, but being a part of a group. The man who went all the way with the experiment had chose the side of the researcher, in my opinion, mainly because he thought he was on the side of the majority. This can show that group think, having numbers, and conformity are all big parts that play into mass movements and people blindly following behind what they think will put themselves in a better position, even if that means hurting people.

Originally posted by PeanutButterBoy on September 21, 2025 12:12

The Milgram experiment is a brilliant example of how easy it is to manipulate others into actions, and explains many patterns that we’ve seen throughout history. While there are differences between the intensity of the experiment and different genocides, there were many similar patterns found. The immediate denial of any wrongdoing, the attempts to rewrite history, and the shift of blame onto another party can be found in both tragic events in history and this experiment. The Milgram experiment helps to highlight the areas where we as humans are naturally flawed. I found the experiment to be very interesting, and I think that it shows that anybody has the potential to hurt others, under certain circumstances. Two of the men in the video were very polite, and showed a lot of respect to the scientists, yet those men still actively made the decision to hurt someone. While you can argue that it was passive, that they were being forced into continuing the experiment, nobody threatened them with a punishment, and one of the men was successful in his attempt to stop the experiment. I believe that when these men were asking to stop the experiment, they were just looking for guidance, and weren’t actually pushing for the experiment to end. This was demonstrated with the second man in the video, who said many times that he wanted to stop the experiment, yet even after the “learner” stopped responding, he continued on when the scientist pushed him on. This man was also told that he would not be held responsible for his actions, which we learned yesterday is a common reason why men like this one continue taking harmful orders and continue to hurt others. This mirrors the claims that were made by many members of the Nazi regime. In Joshua Barajas’ essay, he explained how many officers claimed that they were “forced to serve as mere instruments” for Hitler, and claimed that they were “just following orders”, which was an attempt to shift the blame off of them. This experiment clearly shows why regular people get involved in dangerous and harmful groups. When there is a presence of authority in a group, others tend to follow that person and obey their commands. The participants of the experiment followed the orders of the scientist, who to them was more confident and knowledgeable. Because of this view of the scientist, they quickly trusted him, which made it easier for him to manipulate the participants into hurt others. Similarly, the citizens of Germany who struggled after the First World War were quick to trust a seemingly innocent man to lead them back to glory. As they put all of their trust in him, Hitler found it would be easy to manipulate these followers into carrying out his orders. An interesting contrast that I noticed between this experiment and major atrocities in the world is that this experiment wasn’t fueled by hate. While the Germans were told to hate Jews and outsiders, these innocent men weren’t given a reason to hate the learner. So did German soldiers who carried out these atrocities really hate those people that they hurt, or were they just following orders? There is a disconnect that Barajas mentions in his writing, where he explained how people can feel “disconnected from their actions when they comply with orders”, which can explain how genocides still continue to happen. While I do believe that many people who carry out these types of vile actions truly do enjoy seeing others suffer, I also think that most of these people are good in their heart, and this disconnect and the coercion to commit these actions are what push people to do terrible things. I think the only way to prevent these acts of obedience is to show these kinds of experiments and cut out ignorance that some people will have about how easily they can be convinced to hurt others.

While you didn’t touch upon it very much, the “outline” you made at the beginning stuck out to me. The points of “denial of any wrongdoing” and “attempts to rewrite history” are just expressions of cognitive dissonance; people believing in their righteousness and morality while simultaneously having done something that contradicts those values, leading to justifications. However, the next part about “shift[ing] of blame onto another party” grabbed attention. In the Israel-Palestine conflict, Israel’s justification for their ethnic cleansing often stems from a Palestinian woe, which expresses itself through ""arguments"" such as: treating any Palestinian retaliation as a reason to dismiss their humanity, or saying historically Palestinians “did a genocide” by kicking out Jews. So, I think all of these strategies for justification can happen during the moment as easily as after the fact. One thing to mention is that none of the “teachers” in the Milgram experiment shifted the blame onto the “learner”, which is probably in part due to the amiability between the two. If the teachers and learners never meet or even if the teacher thought the learner was “lesser” would more people have continued the shocks for longer? Many of the social, economic, and political conditions in Germany after WW2 you identified also weren't present in the experiments. How might these have effected the teachers.