learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by microwavedpizza on September 23, 2025 18:54

I think that under the right circumstances, everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence against others, whether intentionally or unconsciously. The Milgram experiments (a clear example of this idea) suggest that when someone who seems to be more knowledgeable instructs us to do something and provides reassurance, we are likely to do what is asked of us. In the experiments, one man continues to deliver shocks all the way up to nearly the highest voltage despite knowing it was wrong. Afterwards, when the scheme was revealed to him and he was asked why he failed to halt, the man began to explain himself away. He took the easier way out and shifted the blame onto the instructor, communicating how he didn’t have a choice and that he was not personally responsible. I believe that even though the experiment was all planned, the man experienced cognitive dissonance knowing that he followed through with the instructions. His response demonstrates an attempt to justify himself and reduce any feelings of guilt. The fact that he couldn’t see the person he was shocking definitely played a role in his continuation as well. In a more general sense, I think that if we cannot physically see the harm we are implementing onto others, we are able to play it down. This same tactic was used during the Holocaust in gas chambers. Supporting this idea, when the experiment was conducted with the “student” and “teacher” in a closer proximity to one another, the teacher was more likely to stop. To start off one of his papers, Milgrim wrote “Obedience, as a determinant of behavior, is of particular relevance to our time,”. I find this interesting and relevant as it was written over 60 years ago and still pertains to modern life. After reading it, I question how we as a society determine who we will be obedient to. Without question, there are laws we (most of us, at least) follow such as not murdering, kidnapping, or committing arson. There is still a lot of gray area though, and I wonder how it came to be that we collectively choose who not to listen to.

It seems to me that such experiments can serve as smaller-scaled symbols that explain ordinary people’s active participation in violence, mass atrocities, and genocide. A large cause of this is the personality of the leader, as we have learned in class. Those with charisma, leadership, and confidence can manipulate groups with lower self-esteem into actions they would not typically engage in. These characteristics are not inherently bad, in fact I believe them to be largely valuable and encouraging. I see no problem with those who harbor similar personality traits. When they use them with bad intentions or to harm someone else, however, is when it becomes an issue. We like to believe that if we ever found ourselves in a similar situation, we would 100% not fall for the tactics… but then again many who are sucked in had the same mindset and when it comes to it, we can never be so sure.

I think the most compelling idea in your post is your point that “under the right circumstances, everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator of violence.” I agree with you here, because the Milgram experiment reveals how ordinary people, when pressured by authority or when they are not able to directly see the consequences of their actions, can cross lines that they themselves wouldn't expect to. I also found it interesting how you connected the experiment and the Holocaust. It highlights how small scale psychological research can help explain mass scale atrocities, which makes the relevance of the Milgram experiment clearer. Your point about proximity really stood out to me as well. The fact that people were more likely to stop when they were physically closer to the student makes a lot of sense. It makes me think about other discussions we’ve had in class about dehumanization, and how distance can make harmful actions easier to justify and reduce cognitive dissonance. My view is very similar to yours. I think I’d resist if I was placed in a situation like Milgram’s participants, but I also know that authority and social pressure play a large role in how we think, which makes me a lot less sure.

Originally posted by D5 Athlete on September 23, 2025 20:52

Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman once wrote 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 observation presents us with something that most people don’t want to hear. The potential to be so cruel lies in ordinary people. The Milgram Experiment, conducted at Yale in the 1960s, shows how obedience and an authoritative figure can transform an individual into someone who would cause harm to someone else. When you look at this beside Joshua Barajas’s article How Nazi's Defense of "Just Following Orders" Plays Out in the Mind, it shows that obedience is not just weakness but that in people's minds, they use it to not take responsibility. The Milgram Experiment suggests that almost everyone has the potential to harm others under the right conditions. In the study, many of the volunteers were willing to give the other person high voltage electricity shocks only because an authority figure told them to continue. The participants were not inherently violent (I assume) and they believed they were helping science. Yet when they were urged by the scientist, they continued to inflict pain despite all the shouts of the learner begging them to stop. This shows that human beings prioritize authority over what their own moral conscience is telling them to do, especially when an authority figure will take the responsibility. The article helps explain why this happens. Barajas uses research that shows when people act under orders, their sense of agency lessens and they feel less responsibility for their actions. As Patrick Hoggard notes, people experience their actions under authority as “passive movements” instead of voluntary choices. This mirrors the mindset of one of the Holocaust’s chief organizers, who claimed he was “forced to serve as a mere instrument.” While Haggard cautions that just following orders should not be a viable excuse, he says that feeling the effect of less responsibility can really happen to anyone. However, obedience to authority is not the only factor that explains why ordinary people participate in atrocities. Other influences such as fear of punishment, peer pressure, and prejudice. For example, in the Milgram experiment, many participants said they were uncomfortable but continued shocking the learner because they felt they had to. Quitting would have meant they failed the experimenter and disrupted the study. On a larger scale like genocide, people may fear imprisonment, job loss, or being ostracised if they resist. Propaganda is also used to make the victims seem like less than human, making the violence more justifiable. All this to say, obedience combines with other social pressures to create the conditions in which mass violence becomes possible.

My favorite idea from my peers' post was from the closing argument where they said “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”. This idea that there isn’t a single person you can completely agree with is something I totally agree with. People get too comfortable saying they agree with everything that someone has to say, when in reality no two people are alike and no two people think exactly the same. This connects to the experiment because these people blindly agreed with the experimenter because they are “smart” and will take responsibility. I believe you have to make sure that your decisions line up with your beliefs and what you want because otherwise you could end up doing something that isn’t the best decision for you. My peer mentioned the fact that psychologists thought that only 1 in 1000 people would continue the experiment, but in reality 65% or so carried on. It seems the psychologists never took into account the validation that someone gets for not having to take responsibility for their actions. This is what led to peoples decisions that seemed to be not so morally backed.