Stanley Milgram begins his paper by citing the importance of obedience in our society, defining it as a “deeply ingrained behaviour tendency” (Milgram, 1973). In accordance with that definition, Milgram explains his study, which aims to examine the lengths to which ordinary people will hurt their fellows while following directions from an authority figure. He concludes that, despite expected results of defiance, nearly all tested subjects were extremely willing to hurt their counterparts when commanded. Milgram’s examination of obedience showcases an integral deep-set value to obey authoritative commands that can override other values such as morality and kindness. In addition, his reply to Baumrind further highlights the importance of his
…show more content…
He continuously asserts his unwillingness to participate with the experiment, yet continues to administer the shocks when pressed by the experimenter. Several times, he clarifies that he will not be held accountable for his actions, and only when the experimenter assumes all responsibility for the actions is Prozi is able to continue to 450 volts. This specific scenario highlights the true nature of obedience, in which “a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes,” and “therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions” (Milgram, 1973). Once they can dissociate themselves of any responsibility for their actions, their morality focus shifts to obeying and pleasing the authority. The subjects are simply doing their duty, in their eyes, and are absolved of any type of …show more content…
She claims a certain degree of obedience is both appropriate and required within a laboratory setting, therefore Milgram’s results are biased and unrepresentative of obedience levels within the general populous. Furthermore, by placing the subject in an unfamiliar situation that incites feelings of anxiety and dependence, the response to authoritative demands will be much higher than in other settings (Baumrind,
He continuously asserts his unwillingness to participate with the experiment, yet continues to administer the shocks when pressed by the experimenter. Several times, he clarifies that he will not be held accountable for his actions, and only when the experimenter assumes all responsibility for the actions is Prozi is able to continue to 450 volts. This specific scenario highlights the true nature of obedience, in which “a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes,” and “therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions” (Milgram, 1973). Once they can dissociate themselves of any responsibility for their actions, their morality focus shifts to obeying and pleasing the authority. The subjects are simply doing their duty, in their eyes, and are absolved of any type of …show more content…
She claims a certain degree of obedience is both appropriate and required within a laboratory setting, therefore Milgram’s results are biased and unrepresentative of obedience levels within the general populous. Furthermore, by placing the subject in an unfamiliar situation that incites feelings of anxiety and dependence, the response to authoritative demands will be much higher than in other settings (Baumrind,