Analysis Of Milgram And The Perils Of Obedience

1684 Words4 Pages

The conclusions drawn from Milgram’s experiment and Burger’s “Replicating Milgram” presents a compelling argument on the implication and compliance of obedience and personal morality in the presence of a figure with authority. These results are quite significant because of its theoretical and feasible application to explicate the role and outcome of obedience in a societal context, and to discuss in such instances on who should be responsible. Through numerous examples as illustrated in Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience” and “Replicating Milgram” by Jerry M. Burger, individuals that compromise their own ethics in order to follow the orders of those with authority, should still be held accountable even if responsibility is presumably agreed upon by an authority figure.

In the late 1960s, Stanley Milgram, then a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment that explored the effects of obedience towards an individual’s moral values in the imposition of an authority figure. The study revolved around three significant roles, most namely known as the teacher, the learner, and the experimenter. Participants …show more content…

Many were aware of the plausible consequences with the incident, and were faced with an ordeal that conflicted their own moral values. In the instance of an authoritative figure, many choose to place a higher value in self-image, and the perception of others. As a result, many forego their own moral resolution, and falsely created a portrayal of an assistant that does not deserve responsibility for the unfolded events. A plausible argument to free the participants from any blame are the experimenter’s agreement to accept responsibility, and a lack in scientific expertise or knowledge. But as illustrated by Milgrim and Burger, these individuals do not deserve absolve due to their involvement to continue the

Open Document