Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Dichotomy of conformity
Analysis of milgram's obedience study
Analysis of milgram's obedience study
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Dichotomy of conformity
As previously stated, everyone has been pressured to conform at some point during their life. The majority of people naturally will conform to society and obey an authority figure. However, Miss Emily strays from being part of the majority and lives her life resisting conformity and denying authority. I have already discussed why someone might resist conformity and the possible consequences, now I will discuses why people obey authority figures and ultimately conform to society. Stanley Milgram’s book, Obedience to Authority, is dedicated to testing the humans’ ability to obey authority despite of the consequences of their obedience. According to the English Oxford Dictionaries, “Obedience is compliance with an order, request, or law or submission …show more content…
According to Milgram, “Conservative Philosophers argue . . . even when the act prescribed by authority is an evil one, it is better carry out the act than to wrench at the structure of authority” (Milgram, 2). On the contrary “humanists argue . . . that the moral judgment of the individual must override authority when the two are in conflict” (Milgram, 2). Milgram preformed an experiment that tested both the conservative and humanist views. To set up the experiment Milgram began with two people; one “teacher” and one “learner”. The learner is placed in room, strapped to a chair, and an electrode is placed on their wrist. The leaner is told to memorize a list of word pairs and repeat them back to the teacher. Every time in the learner makes an error while repeating the word pairs they will receive an electric shock; increasing with each error. The main focus of the experiment is the teacher. The teacher watches the leaner while they are strapped to the chair and hooked up to the electrode. They are then taken to a separate room where they are …show more content…
Only about one-third of the subjects who participated in Milgram’s experiment stood up to the experimenter/authority figure. As reported in Milgram’s book, one subject found it difficult to administer the shock every time. “His lips are drawn back, and he bares his teeth”, said Milgram (Milgram, 48). When the experimenter sees the subject struggling he tell him it is crucial to the experiment that he continues. The subject replies, “I understand that statement, but I don’t understand why the experiment is placed above this person’s life” (Milgram, 48). The experimenter told the subject the learner was not going to have permanent damage to his health. The subject was not fooled by the experimenter and said, “well that’s your opinion. If he doesn’t want to continue, I’m taking orders from him” (Milgram, 48). The experimenter responded to the subject’s comment by telling him he has no choice he must continue. However, the subject informed the experimenter that this is America and he can make decisions for himself. That portion of the experiment was then terminated. Although the majority of people would do as they are told and finish the experiment no matter the consequences, there are a few people who put the conscience above
Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on learning. The learner was strapped into a chair that resembled a miniature electric chair, and was told he would have to learn a small list of word pairs. For each incorrect answer, he would be given electric shocks of increasing intensity ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The experimenter informed the teacher that his job was to administer the shocks. The experimenter's job was to oversee that the experiment was completed.
The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and were taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually shocked, the teachers believed they were inflicting real harm on these innocent people.... ... middle of paper ...
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
Comparative Analysis Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine). While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from escape and under control.
The experiment began with Milgram placing an advertisement in the local newspaper to recruit volunteers for his experiment. The experiment began with the introduction of the other participant, the other participant being an ally of Milgram’s. Afterwards, each participant would draw straws to decide which role they would take up, the “teacher” or the “learner.” However, the decision was always fixed so that the participant would always end up being the teacher. The learner would then be strapped to an electric chair by the teacher and would have a list of words read to him to be
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
The Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Obedience is a widely debated topic today with many different standpoints from various brilliant psychologists. Studying obedience is still important today to attempt to understand why atrocities like the Holocaust or the My Lai Massacre happened so society can learn from them and not repeat history. There are many factors that contribute to obedience including situation and authority. The film A Few Good Men, through a military court case, shows how anyone can fall under the influence of authority and become completely obedient to conform to the roles that they have been assigned. A Few Good Men demonstrates how authority figures can control others and influence them into persuading them to perform a task considered immoral or unethical.
Conformity is defined as the occurrence of people yielding to social pressures as a result of pressure from a group of their peers; when faced by the pressure to conform, people will alter their behaviour and actions to fit the norm demonstrated by their peers (Lilienfield et al., 2012). Conformity is studied so that is can be understood and used in society to facilitate positive outcomes, and help avoid situations where peoples’ predisposition to conform leads to negative consequences (Lilienfield et al., 2012). By understanding conformity and other social processes society as a whole is able to understand themselves better and motivates them to work on improving as a whole (Lilienfield et al., 2012).
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.