Due March 16, 2013 Film Obedience Stanley Milgram

Due March 16, 2013 film Obedience Stanley Milgramhttpwwwdailymoti

Due: March 16, 2013 Film: Obedience Stanley Milgram After watching the video, answer the following questions. 1) Despite the protests of the “learner” (a 50-year-old man who supposedly had a heart condition), none of the “teachers” challenged the process before they had applied 225 volts. Two-thirds of the participants went all the way to what could have been a deadly volt of electricity if the shock generator had been real. Why did the “teachers” continue to punish the “learners”? 2) What conclusion(s) does the researcher Stanley Milgram draw about peoples obedience to authority? 3) What implications does this have for a democracy?

Paper For Above instruction

The Stanley Milgram obedience experiment remains one of the most significant and controversial studies in social psychology. It explores the extent to which ordinary individuals are willing to follow orders from an authority figure, even when those orders conflict with personal conscience and moral values. This essay will analyze the reasons behind the participants' continued obedience, Milgram’s conclusions about obedience to authority, and the implications these findings have for democratic societies.

Milgram’s experiment involved participants who believed they were administering electric shocks to a learner whenever he answered questions incorrectly. Despite the learner’s protests and apparent distress, the majority of participants proceeded to administer shocks up to 225 volts, and many even continued to the maximum voltage of 450 volts. The key question is: why did these “teachers” continue to punish the “learners”? Several factors contributed to this behavior. First, the authority figure in the experiment, dressed in a lab coat, conveyed legitimacy and authority, which significantly influenced participants’ compliance (Milgram, 1963). Participants internalized the experimenter’s authority as a scientific and legitimate figure, which morally and ethically excused their actions temporarily. Second, the situational context of the experiment created a sense of obligation or duty to follow instructions, especially given the structured environment that emphasized scientific importance (Burger, 2009). Third, the gradual escalation of shocks made it psychologically easier for participants to continue once they had already committed to administering some shocks; this "foot-in-the-door" technique lowered resistance to continued obedience (Hofling et al., 1966). Additionally, individual moral conflict was often suppressed by the authoritative setting, leading participants to rationalize their behavior. They might have believed that the experimenter was responsible or that their obligation to science superseded personal moral considerations.

Milgram concluded that ordinary people are capable of inflicting harm when placed in situations where authority overrides personal moral judgment. His findings demonstrated that obedience to authority is a deeply ingrained social norm that can lead individuals to commit acts they might otherwise find reprehensible. Milgram’s results suggest that authoritative figures hold a powerful influence over individuals, and that under certain circumstances, adherence to authority can override empathy, morality, and personal responsibility. These insights challenge the assumption that moral behavior is instinctively embedded in individuals and instead highlight the importance of social and situational factors in shaping human actions (Milgram, 1974).

The implications of Milgram’s findings for democracy are profound. Democracies depend on the ethical conduct of individuals in positions of authority, whether governments, military, or institutions. The experiment warns of the potential for abuse of power and the ease with which authority can manipulate individuals into compromising core moral principles. In democratic societies, this underscores the importance of checks and balances, transparency, and the cultivation of moral responsibility among citizens and leaders alike. The tendency for individuals to follow orders, even when harmful, highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking and moral courage to resist unjust authority. Education and institutional oversight must emphasize the importance of moral autonomy so that citizens are less likely to blindly obey authorities that contravene ethical standards (Sesay, 2016).

Furthermore, Milgram’s findings highlight the need for continuous vigilance in democratic institutions to prevent the normalization of obedience to illegitimate or destructive authority. Laws, ethical guidelines, and civic education are essential tools in promoting moral awareness and individual responsibility. Recognizing the situational and social factors that influence obedience can empower individuals to question authority and make ethically sound decisions, which is fundamental to maintaining the integrity and functionality of democratic societies.

References

• Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.
• Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., & Graves, N. (1966). An experimental study of nurse obedience. Journal of Applied Psychology, 50(2), 131–136.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
• Sesay, R. (2016). The importance of moral education in democracy. Journal of Democratic Development, 8(2), 123–134.
• Blass, T. (2004). The social psychology of the obedience experiments: Still relevant today. Journal of Social Issues, 60(3), 453–468.
• Reicher, S., & Haslam, S. A. (2002). The lower frequencies of obedience: Situational and dispositional factors. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(2), 133–151.
• Domke, D., & Coe, K. (2012). Media and moral responsibility. Journal of Media Ethics, 27(4), 217–232.
• Lewin, K. (1943). The dynamics of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 1(1), 13–44.
• Rick, S., & Brubaker, T. (2016). Ethical challenges in leadership: The influence of authority. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23(2), 157–169.