Stanley Milgram Experiments On Obedience Analysis

In the articles “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” and “Review of Stanly Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience,” authors Theodore Dalrymple and Diana Baumrind describe the aspects of the Stanley Milgram experiment, while they both partake different topics to discuss. Dalrymple, a British physician, claims that there is a difference between blind obedience and blind disobedience, and there should be a healthy balance between the two (Dalrymple 119). However, Baumrind believes that the subjects should have been treated in a more enhanced way; therefore, claiming that the experiment unsuitably took advantage of the inherent trust and obedience given by the subject when volunteering to participate (Baumrind 89). These two articles are relevant to …show more content…
Dalrymple logically states, “Milgram proved that it was obedience to authority that led people to behave in this fashion, rather than, say, the unleashing of a latent sadistic urge to inflict pain on people.” He accurately describes this quote in his article because the subjects upset the learner by following the study behind obedience (Dalrymple 120). Yvonne Williams, a social psychologist studying the Holocaust, positions that obedience to authority is not an aspect that could be fixed, but it rather depends on the cultures a person might be raised with (Williams). While Dalrymple effectively refers to this, Baumrind dissimilarity argues that the German Officers viewed the Jewish people “as subhuman and not worthy of consideration” because they did not believe they were in the wrong. Baumrind logically states that Milgram is concerned with the social consequences of destructive obedience, because he demonstrates the problem about how the German Officers during the Holocaust were forced to obey, or else they were to be killed (Baumrind 93). Based on the video, “Basic Instinct 5: Milgram Experiment Re-visited,” the manager of a local McDonalds was in a similar situation as the German officers. The manager was required to obey the “police” who called her because she thought he was of a higher authority. Furthermore, if she obligated not to obey, she would have lost her job (“Basic Instinct 5...”). Another factor Dalrymple effectively argues, is about two thirds of the subjects were prepared to obey the experimenter due to the commands provided by a superior (Dalrymple 120). According to the experts of Santa Clara University, Thomas Shanks explains that people obey authority because they are ordered to act against their conscience and are normally believed to obey (Shanks). Relating to the study of obedience to authority,