Horror endorsed through duty and a review of its controversy led many to question the ethics of being truly and fully obedient. Marianne Szegedy-Maszak, journalist and author of “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism”, discusses the possible reasons why the Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal occurred (75-77). Causing people to wonder how supposedly sane human beings could accomplish such insane acts, the American soldiers that were a share of this horrific crime against humanity displayed no remorse (76). Szegedy-Maszak’s insight into these horrible deeds demonstrated that the soldiers were evenhandedly, “Ensuring their duty” to allegedly “soften up” the soldiers for the interrogation (76-77). On the other hand, Abu Ghraib was not the only
…show more content…
The setting in the laboratory as Baumrind explains is another reason why Milgram’s experiments were prejudicial since, in a laboratory, the subjects are more likely to behave in an obedient manner (90). Baumrind correctly states that when a patient travels to a doctor’s office the patient expects a level of help and protection from that doctor (90). This state of mind between the patient and the professional effectively brings to light Baumrind's explanation. In addition to this theory, Szegedy-Maszak also pronounces that, to the soldiers, Abu Ghraib became an island where “conventional morality no longer applied” (77). Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment that in effect proves that venue can vastly change the way a person acts (76). Zimbardo's experiment displayed that students, when provided authority over others, will take advantage of those below them (76). His experiment also exposed that his chosen setting, a prison, was increasing important due to the fact that the “guards” acted in the same harsh manner as the Abu Ghraib prison guards (76). Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett, who co-wrote “The Power of Situations”, concur with Baumrind and Szegedy-Maszak that venue and the overall situation is more important than a person’s character to try to guess what the individual will choose (148-149). These authors effectively prove Baumrind and Szegedy-Maszak’s
The setting in the laboratory as Baumrind explains is another reason why Milgram’s experiments were prejudicial since, in a laboratory, the subjects are more likely to behave in an obedient manner (90). Baumrind correctly states that when a patient travels to a doctor’s office the patient expects a level of help and protection from that doctor (90). This state of mind between the patient and the professional effectively brings to light Baumrind's explanation. In addition to this theory, Szegedy-Maszak also pronounces that, to the soldiers, Abu Ghraib became an island where “conventional morality no longer applied” (77). Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment that in effect proves that venue can vastly change the way a person acts (76). Zimbardo's experiment displayed that students, when provided authority over others, will take advantage of those below them (76). His experiment also exposed that his chosen setting, a prison, was increasing important due to the fact that the “guards” acted in the same harsh manner as the Abu Ghraib prison guards (76). Lee Ross and Richard E. Nisbett, who co-wrote “The Power of Situations”, concur with Baumrind and Szegedy-Maszak that venue and the overall situation is more important than a person’s character to try to guess what the individual will choose (148-149). These authors effectively prove Baumrind and Szegedy-Maszak’s