TYRANNY is motivated by love, not obedience
For years, researchers tried to name the factors that lead people to commit cruel acts. Probably the most famous example of such attempt was a study done by Stanley Milgram, who concluded that almost any person could commit a tyranny if given an order to do so. This has been a standard view on tyranny for almost over 50 years. However, new evidence shows that there is an alternative explanation for Milgram’s findings. According to professor Haslam from the University of Queensland, in Milgram’s study, participants did not actually obey explicit orders but instead committed cruel acts because they strongly identified with the science.
In Milgram’s study, an experimenter asked participants to administer increasing shocks to other people if they gave an incorrect answer. Most of the participants obeyed the order to administer a lethal dose of shock to another person. Milgram …show more content…
Usually, there were not explicit orders for Nazi bureaucrats to follow. They simply asked themselves “What is it my leader wants me to do?”. They identified with both the leader and the cause and believed they were working for the greater good. In fact, they thought of themselves as of kind people. That was the reason they were not distressed by own actions. As professor Haslam put it, “Tyranny is not a causal act of conformity but a labour of love”.
So could we conclude that it is all about the leader, who should convince people in the worthiness of the cause? Thus, is it all about public speaking and persuasiveness? Can we risk having another war because one leader has good public speaking skills?
The main ethical problem with Milgram’s study was not that participants were distressed. Rather, it was with the ideologies it propagated. Therefore, if you want to know whether you are a bad person, ask yourself “what I am doing - is it wrong?”. Don’t focus on the cause that you are committed to. Focus on the action
For years, researchers tried to name the factors that lead people to commit cruel acts. Probably the most famous example of such attempt was a study done by Stanley Milgram, who concluded that almost any person could commit a tyranny if given an order to do so. This has been a standard view on tyranny for almost over 50 years. However, new evidence shows that there is an alternative explanation for Milgram’s findings. According to professor Haslam from the University of Queensland, in Milgram’s study, participants did not actually obey explicit orders but instead committed cruel acts because they strongly identified with the science.
In Milgram’s study, an experimenter asked participants to administer increasing shocks to other people if they gave an incorrect answer. Most of the participants obeyed the order to administer a lethal dose of shock to another person. Milgram …show more content…
Usually, there were not explicit orders for Nazi bureaucrats to follow. They simply asked themselves “What is it my leader wants me to do?”. They identified with both the leader and the cause and believed they were working for the greater good. In fact, they thought of themselves as of kind people. That was the reason they were not distressed by own actions. As professor Haslam put it, “Tyranny is not a causal act of conformity but a labour of love”.
So could we conclude that it is all about the leader, who should convince people in the worthiness of the cause? Thus, is it all about public speaking and persuasiveness? Can we risk having another war because one leader has good public speaking skills?
The main ethical problem with Milgram’s study was not that participants were distressed. Rather, it was with the ideologies it propagated. Therefore, if you want to know whether you are a bad person, ask yourself “what I am doing - is it wrong?”. Don’t focus on the cause that you are committed to. Focus on the action