Jump to content

Nature of Obedience to Authority


Judge Judy
 Share

Recommended Posts

In Psychology, we learnt of an experiment conducted by Milgram.

This study was controlled observation investigating the nature of obedience to authority.

The background to the study was an interest in events that occurred in Nazi Germany. Soldiers obediently killed millions of people on orders of their superiors.

Milgram wanted to show human tendency to obey orders could extend to where personal morals and beliefs would be overridden.

He conducted a study where male participants were ordered to administer electric shocks to a level strong enough to kill. Though the electric shocks were fake. The participants were NOT aware of this.

He concluded in certain conditions, the average person could become a killer in the name of obedience.

So would you obey authority to a certain extent to take someone else’s life?

Edited by Judge Judy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so... (I don't consider myself to be a typical person to begin with) I'd probably disobey the order (simply on the bias that I have disobeyed people many many times in the past, whether for good or bad reasons) before I'd kill someone, even if it costs my own life, at least I'll have let an innocent or otherwise better person live, that's how I think :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not the kind of person who blindy takes orders. Not servile enough. I wouldn't do it unless it was just, and my morals aren't screwed up like a generic anime villian's.

We are talking about the government or a big authority figure giving orders to take someone elses life.

For example, WW2 soldiers were ordered to kill the Jewish people by the government. In that context, would you ever consider taking someone elses life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about the government or a big authority figure giving orders to take someone elses life.

For example, WW2 soldiers were ordered to kill the Jewish people by the government. In that context, would you ever consider taking someone elses life?

What I just said. No, I wouldn't. I'll admit I don't like Jewish people (actually, any Religious people, but anything's fine as long as they aren't completely obsessed with their religion and try to convert me), but killing a bunch of people just because they believe in something is just stupid. If I don't believe in killing someone because of something, I'm not going to do it.

I don't really care how much authority someone has, because authority does not exist. It's nothing but how high and mighty you think someone is.

Edited by Destiny Hero
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I just said. No, I wouldn't. I'll admit I don't like Jewish people (actually, any Religious people, but anything's fine as long as they aren't completely obsessed with their religion and try to convert me), but killing a bunch of people just because they believe in something is just stupid. If I don't believe in killing someone because of something, I'm not going to do it.

I don't really care how much authority someone has, because authority does not exist. It's nothing but how high and mighty you think someone is.

Though it would be difficult to back those words up because hundred of soldiers did as they were told.

Edited by Judge Judy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I just said. No, I wouldn't. I'll admit I don't like Jewish people (actually, any Religious people, but anything's fine as long as they aren't completely obsessed with their religion and try to convert me), but killing a bunch of people just because they believe in something is just stupid. If I don't believe in killing someone because of something, I'm not going to do it.

I don't really care how much authority someone has, because authority does not exist. It's nothing but how high and mighty you think someone is.

You do know that they targeted the Jewish RACE, not the Jewish religion. Maybe it would be clearer if I said that they targeted Semites as opposed to Jews...

Anyhow, I'm not going to lie, if someone said "Kill this guy or I will kill you" and I could be pretty fucking sure he meant it, I'd probably listen to him. But if I didn't think he'd kill me then there's pretty much no way I'd listen to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that they targeted the Jewish RACE, not the Jewish religion. Maybe it would be clearer if I said that they targeted Semites as opposed to Jews...

Anyhow, I'm not going to lie, if someone said "Kill this guy or I will kill you" and I could be pretty fucking sure he meant it, I'd probably listen to him. But if I didn't think he'd kill me then there's pretty much no way I'd listen to him.

Movie cliches demand he'd kill you afterward!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assumption that NAZI soldiers killed millions of people in the holocaust because they were "forced" to do it is an erroneous assumption. Most did it because they wanted to do it. Because they felt they had to do it.

This still relates to authority however, because of the role Hitler played in it. Like many ethnic entrepreneurs (look at Slobodan Milošević in former Yugoslavia for an example of one in our lifetimes), Hitler's charisma played a crucial part in intensifying the ethnic tensions present within Germany, and using those fears to rocket him to the top of the German government. Of course many other factors were at play, an economic crisis of unheard of proportions, trillion percent inflation like we're seeing in Zimbabwe today, and an ineffective government were all major factors, but Hitler's unique charisma and position also demonstrated the power of individual and how he can command the wills of his countrymen. Fear was the tool he used, creating fear around the "outsider", the slav, the Jew, the Roma (gypsy). Fear was the tool Slobodan Milošević used in Yugoslavia to incite the Serbs to take up arms against the Croats, and fear is what drove the Hutus to slaughter nearly a million Tutsis in Rwanda.

And no one in this topic, even me, can somehow claim to hold their head high and "disdain" authority, and say they would never do those terrible things the evil Nazis or Hutus did, because none of us know what it's like to truly live in fear. This kind of fear drove people in Rwanda to kill their friends, their neighbors, their family. Teachers slaughtered pupils. Doctors killed patients. It was true hell on Earth, and history has proved that no one is immune to true fear. Even I, or you, could be driven to kill our neighbors if we were genuinely convinced that they wanted to kill us first, as hundreds of cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide have shown us.

The power of authority in the state that gives people like Hitler or Milosevic is fear. It isn't a question of loyalty to the state, or whether a government's coercive power presses you to do something, it's when you feel like you have no other choice but to do what you think will protect yourself and your immediate interests.

Edited by Black Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't acting out of obedience, that is acting out of self-preservation.

The type of people who will commit genocide or do terrible acts on the part of their government simply because of "obedience" are very rare, perhaps even mythical. As I stated in my first sentence, the assertion made in the OP is incorrect, as is the entire premise. Never has the main driving force behind any genocide or period of ethnic cleansing been simple loyalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an article how the experiment was conducted in more detail?

Yes its all over the internet. Wikipedia should provide good information but its very basic and most articles do not go into much detail.

You need to study Psychology and understand all the basic concepts for it to be applied to experiment and gain a indept understanding. What I written there is just a summary.

Its a study conducted by Milgram.

Edited by Judge Judy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The type of people who will commit genocide or do terrible acts on the part of their government simply because of "obedience" are very rare, perhaps even mythical. As I stated in my first sentence, the assertion made in the OP is incorrect, as is the entire premise. Never has the main driving force behind any genocide or period of ethnic cleansing been simple loyalty.

Then it looks like I got your point completely wrong. :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Milgram study tried to prove that whether people would commit horrific acts under influence of authority. His study cannot be generalised in this time, since society values changes over time.

I do wonder what the outcome would be if the experiment was conducted again. I highly doubt it since it was very unethical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: Ok you're really going to need to fill in the lines on that one. Please, give some specifics about how this was conducted.

Well Psychologist's are given guidelines to follow to ensure the study or experiment they are carrying out is ethical.

Milgram broke these of the following guidelines. I will go through them briefly (too much detail to go into):

Informed consent: participants were not told that they could withdraw from the experiment.

Deception: the participants were deceived about the true purpose of the experiment. They were made to believe they were administering real electric shocks to a naive subject. (Though this could be debated)

Protection from psychological harm: the participants were severely distressed after the experiment had finished. From what I learnt, they were in terrible shock since they believed they actually killed someone.

There are some other studies where psychologist broke far too many ethical guidelines that the participants ended up mentally disturbed. (Though it is very rare)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there an article how the experiment was conducted in more detail?
I guess you're new to the internet?
And no one in this topic, even me, can somehow claim to hold their head high and "disdain" authority, and say they would never do those terrible things
Ah, I was fucking beaten.

BK is right; with very rare exception you don't know how you'd react in such a situation unless you're in the situation, regardless of what you believe you'd do. It's not like the experiment was conducted among mindless drones. Do you guys even know how the experiment worked, or the details of the results?

If you're really that lazy, then just focus on the bold.

...in one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]

The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]

...

After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]

At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]

If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]

Please continue.

The experiment requires that you continue.

It is absolutely essential that you continue.

You have no other choice, you must go on.

If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession. This experiment could be seen to raise some ethical issues as Stanley Milgram deceived his study's subjects, and put them under more pressure than many believe was necessary.

...

In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.

Later, Prof. Milgram and other psychologists performed variations of the experiment throughout the world ...

Dr. Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County performed a meta-analysis on the results of repeated performances of the experiment. He found that the percentage of participants who are prepared to inflict fatal voltages remains remarkably constant, 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place.

The subjects seem to think of it as an experiment worth doing, too.

The Milgram Experiment raised questions about the ethics of scientific experimentation because of the extreme emotional stress suffered by the participants. In Milgram's defense, 84 percent of former participants surveyed later said they were "glad" or "very glad" to have participated, 15 percent chose neutral responses (92% of all former participants responding).[10] Many later wrote expressing thanks.
Well Psychologist's are given guidelines to follow to ensure the study or experiment they are carrying out is ethical.
why am I replying to someone banned? Maybe it was unethical, but that was probably necessary for the experiment to work:
Milgram broke these of the following guidelines. I will go through them briefly (too much detail to go into):

Informed consent: participants were not told that they could withdraw from the experiment.

Yeah, like German citizens were told they could always just relax and not get caught up in all this business.
Deception: the participants were deceived about the true purpose of the experiment. They were made to believe they were administering real electric shocks to a naive subject. (Though this could be debated)
Um, if they didn't think they were killing somebody, they experiment would have been pointless.
Protection from psychological harm: the participants were severely distressed after the experiment had finished. From what I learnt, they were in terrible shock since they believed they actually killed someone.
And this just proves that you don't need to be a heartless scumbag to murder in cold blood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...