Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thematic essay on power corrupts
Milgram experiment 5
Summary of milgram experiment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Over the years the question of absolute power and morality have been discussed in many articles. In the article "The Perils of Obedience" Stanley Milgram shares his experimental study where he sets out to prove that ordinary people perform unjust tasks to the public eye. Milgram reveals the negative side of blindly obeying (Milgram 77). The people in the experiment are told to say different words, and the learner has to memorize and repeat them. If the learner fails to recite the words correctly, the subjects deliver a level of shock. The learner is secretly an actor but pretends to be in pain. The subjects continue to follow the authority even when they have the chance for the experiment to end. The question of blind obedience and absolute …show more content…
He believes that if society continues to act on this, and then eventually these acts will destroy society and lead the world into destruction. According to Fromm, he states that original sin is what set man free and that humans have the intuitive knowledge of what is human and inhuman (Fromm 124-126). He synthesizes that an individual must find the courage to stand up for his or her morals and have the courage to say no. Milgram and Fromm effectively agree on the necessary following of orders from Dawson and Downey, as well as the issue of their blind obedience to the order by Jessup's call for code red, and they effectively explain Jessup and Markinson’s role in absolute power and how it can affect the entire …show more content…
Jessup had absolute power over Dawson and Downey to order a code red. Milgram logically explains this in his article with the experimenter’s power of the individual performing the immoral act even when accustomed the choice to stop. Both Milgram and Fromm would agree that absolute power can be corrupt. While Christopher Shea author of "Why Power Corrupts" would disagree and states in his study that power does not corrupt and only heightens pre-existing ethical tendencies. However, he does agree that there is a relationship between moral identity, ethical behavior and aggressiveness. This resembles the way the subjects thought in Milgram's experiment, and they believed that they must proceed because the experimenter told them to (Milgram 81). According to Ronald E Riggo PhD "How Power Corrupts leaders" he effectively ties on the idea that leaders tend to use their power to acquire tasks not always for the good. Fromm verifies this idea by stating that for centuries people have insisted that obedience is a virtue and disobedience is a vice (Fromm 125). These statements lead to an explanation of the action by Jessup to order code red, Riggo explains that Jessup would have sensed personal power in the situation and deluded himself into thinking he was working for the greater good of the unit but engaged in power that is morally wrong. Fromm and Riggo would explain the
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
Upon analyzing his experiment, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, concludes that people will drive to great lengths to obey orders given by a higher authority. The experiment, which included ordinary people delivering “shocks” to an unknown subject, has raised many questions in the psychological world. Diana Baumrind, a psychologist at the University of California and one of Milgram’s colleagues, attacks Milgram’s ethics after he completes his experiment in her review. She deems Milgram as being unethical towards the subjects he uses for testing and claims that his experiment is irrelevant to obedience. In contrast, Ian Parker, a writer for New Yorker and Human Sciences, asserts Milgram’s experiments hold validity in the psychological world. While Baumrind focuses on Milgram’s ethics, Parker concentrates more on the reactions, both immediate and long-term, to his experiments.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
Therefore, people forget their morals and defy their personality. Shea states people can change their morals due to the effects of power (Shea). Fromm claims that an individual’s decisions reflect his or her conscious because their conscious is what brings them “back to ourselves, to our humanity” (Fromm 126). Fromm would state that Jessup believes he could do anything because of the power he holds; therefore, Jessup allows power to rise above his conscious. This demonstrates how easily authority can corrupt an individual. Jessup knew Santiago would physically not be able to handle the “code red”, yet power overrules his morals (A Few Good Men). Fromm would admit that Jessup’s authority trumped his morals, yet also believes that Dawson and
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, in 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
Lt. Daniel Kaffee uses his Harvard law education to represent two Marines who are being charged for murder in the movie A Few Good Men. Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway and Lt. Sam Weinberg assist Kaffee on his investigation, thought to be a Code Red, a form of abusive peer discipline. While conversing with Jessep and his two senior officers in Cuba, Kaffee becomes suspicious about certain information given. In the end, Kaffee is triumphant over the case by proving Jessep’s guilt. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, introduces his opinion on obedience in his article, “The Perils of Obedience,” while discussing the background to his experiment. An experimenter ordered the unaware teacher to give the learner agonizing shocks, not knowing that the learner was not truly hooked up to the voltage. The experimenter’s goal was to make sure that the teacher followed all orders, even if that meant supposedly harming the learner. Surprisingly, more people obeyed the experimenter rather than following the instinct to help the learner. Likewise, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, claims that obedience and disobedience both can have good and bad consequences. From...
Lance Corporal Harold Dawson has much to lose from disobeying the code red order from Colonel Jessup. By previously disobeying an order that contradicted with his moral compass, he was denied a promotion in rank. Because of the negative result from disobeying an order from a superior, there is an incentive for Dawson to obey orders. Milgram would find this course of action to be reasonable based on society’s standards because he found the power of authority to be slightly unstable with no threats of punishment imposed on his subjects; however, he readily concludes authority “managed to command a degree of obedience” even while having no power to impose any punishment (Milgram 88). Concurring with this conjecture is Zimbardo as he found prisoners
Asch and Milgram’s experiment was 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 details of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress, Asch and Milgram’s replicated the reality of life. In “Options and Social Pressure” Solomon E. Asch conducts an experiment to show the power of social influence, by using the lengths of sticks that the participants had to match up with the best fit, Asch then developed different scenarios to see how great the power of influence is, but what he discovered is that people always conformed to the majority regardless of how big or small the error was the individual always gave in to the power of the majority.
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
unjustifiable in order to satisfy an obedient figure. Milgram feels that obedience is an important aspect of society; therefore, he looks to prove his hypothesis that obedience to an authority figure can affect someone's ethical and moral compass. His states that a subject will blindly obey orders despite their morals and ethics. His theory is people will not intentionally inflict pain on another human being, which turned out to be very obvious that moral obligation to another is not as important as following orders. The results concluded that as long as the person does not feel totally responsible for their own actions, then he or she will likely go as far as they could to injure another human being for the sake of authority. Milgram was unsuccessful in showing that a subject would stop inflicting pain after a certain voltage threshold was reached.
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.
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 experiences of real life. 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.
The two Marines did not understand why they were charged with his murder, claiming, “We didn’t do anything wrong.” They claimed that they were only following orders from a superior. To explain the Marines’ behaviors, Milgram would argue that the Marines fell to the pressures of authority. In the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram tests the psychological affects on the “teacher” rather than on the “learner” (Milgram 78) About two-thirds of the test subjects were completely obedient and used the 450-volt shocks, and all of the participants used the painful 300-volt shock (Milgram 80). With these surprising results, Milgram deducts that many of these test subjects carried out these actions because of the authority figure in the room. Coming to a final conclusion, Milgram states that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (Milgram 86). Obedience to authority is ingrained in children from the day they are born, and they are raised to be obedient and this is why many people are obedient. With Milgram’s conclusion, it would be logical to assume that he would argue that the influence of authority is why Dawson and