If it was possible for one to take a step back from the world and watch every event in human history unfold, one would be given the notion that humans, as imperfect beings, are unsettlingly fond of committing horrendous crimes against their fellow men. Germans oversaw the systematic extermination of six million of their Jewish brethren during World War II (8), and Cambodia's Khmer Rouge regime purposefully executed two million of the country’s own citizens in the 1970s (9). These two examples are from the twentieth century alone; in reality earth’s history of genocides is far more extensive than most individuals would like to give it credit. At a first glance at human history, one might pose the question, “How are ordinary people capable of
…show more content…
This group of well-educated individuals included psychiatrists, middle class adults, and faculty members in the human behavioral sciences (1). They held a general consensus: Only one or two of the forty men would likely administer at least 300 volts to the learner, and none of the men (or “only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand,” as Milgram wrote in his article, “The Perils of Obedience”) would pull the last switches labeled “XXX” (1). These assumptions could not have been further from the truth. Twenty-five of the 40 men continued the experiment to the very end, even after listening to the learner’s shouts of protest, agonized screaming, and, ultimately, ominous silence …show more content…
Unfortunately, however, Milgram’s experiment is heavily criticized by some, who discredit its findings entirely--to no avail. The lessons behind Milgram’s experiment cannot be shaken. Obviously the experiment is drastically different from a genocide like the Holocaust. German soldiers led lines of naked Jews to their deaths in gas chambers at grimy concentration camps across Europe while Milgram’s subjects were merely asked to flip a switch and shock a man on the other side of the wall. German soldiers watched their victims die while Milgrim’s subjects were assured by the experimenter that the shocks “may be painful, but they’re not dangerous” (1). But is such an argument actually valid? Most antagonistic authority figures like Adolf Hitler and his fellow Nazis would have never acknowledged the immorality of their regimes to anyone, especially the underlings who were appointed to do their dirty work; therefore, Milgram’s 25 obedient subjects should not have been so easily convinced by the experimenter’s words. The suggestion that a shock can be excruciatingly painful yet completely safe to an individual with heart issues--an unresponsive individual who no longer answers any of the teacher’s questions at all--is utterly ludicrous. Yet humans seem to have a tendency to buy into lies if it allows them to avoid any uncomfortable resistance against
This group of well-educated individuals included psychiatrists, middle class adults, and faculty members in the human behavioral sciences (1). They held a general consensus: Only one or two of the forty men would likely administer at least 300 volts to the learner, and none of the men (or “only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand,” as Milgram wrote in his article, “The Perils of Obedience”) would pull the last switches labeled “XXX” (1). These assumptions could not have been further from the truth. Twenty-five of the 40 men continued the experiment to the very end, even after listening to the learner’s shouts of protest, agonized screaming, and, ultimately, ominous silence …show more content…
Unfortunately, however, Milgram’s experiment is heavily criticized by some, who discredit its findings entirely--to no avail. The lessons behind Milgram’s experiment cannot be shaken. Obviously the experiment is drastically different from a genocide like the Holocaust. German soldiers led lines of naked Jews to their deaths in gas chambers at grimy concentration camps across Europe while Milgram’s subjects were merely asked to flip a switch and shock a man on the other side of the wall. German soldiers watched their victims die while Milgrim’s subjects were assured by the experimenter that the shocks “may be painful, but they’re not dangerous” (1). But is such an argument actually valid? Most antagonistic authority figures like Adolf Hitler and his fellow Nazis would have never acknowledged the immorality of their regimes to anyone, especially the underlings who were appointed to do their dirty work; therefore, Milgram’s 25 obedient subjects should not have been so easily convinced by the experimenter’s words. The suggestion that a shock can be excruciatingly painful yet completely safe to an individual with heart issues--an unresponsive individual who no longer answers any of the teacher’s questions at all--is utterly ludicrous. Yet humans seem to have a tendency to buy into lies if it allows them to avoid any uncomfortable resistance against