It would be introductorily essential to acknowledge that this paper starts off on a note that assumes that the reader is aware of the basic features and characteristics of the Milgram Experiment.
One of the things that have continued to intrigue
contemporary scientists and researchers is, quite
unquestionably, the human brain. This, moreover,
is something that is made quite apparent when
considering it in light of the various psychological
conditions and disorders that are still widely
labeled as being under research. Even today, the
medical sector hasn’t developed completely
assertive solutions to deal with prevalence of
such psychological conditions as schizophrenia,
attention deficit disorder, attention hyperactive
disorder, and various other psychopathological
conditions. Furthermore, considering the current
rate at which such societal woes and terrorism
and violence are becoming increasingly prevalent,
it is barely surprising that research into such
areas of clinical psychology as psychopathology
has been gaining increasing significance.
Achieving a comprehensive modicum of understanding in concern to the reasons for which individuals tend to commit criminal acts against humanity is something that is currently of obvious relevance. This is since this yields the possibility of discovering an absolutely effectual solution to the socio-psychological tendencies that aggravate criminal behavior within individuals, ultimately resulting in such societal woes as terrorism, murder, rape and assault. And it would be appropriate, before carrying on, to take into consideration that such studies gained significant popularity during the post-World War II era, when a great deal of interest was expressed in the extent to which obedience to authority guides human behavior into conflicts with moral views. The question that collectively materialized, especially from within the humanitarian segments, was this: What, after all, was it that ultimately provided soldiers with the motive to assertively partake in the full-scale elimination of those labeled as the opponents?
This, in turn, ultimately led to the emergence
of the notion that perhaps it was nothing more
than obedience to authority that was the culprit
to blame for the mass genocides committed during
World War II as well as other armed clashes of
colossal proportion that have occurred during
the course of written history. And this is the
ideology that psychologist Stanley Milgram set
out to prove or disprove with his experiment in
1961, Since known as the Milgram Experiment. It
is also known as the Eichmann experiment due to
its supposed relevance to the exceptionally inhumane
atrocities that were committed against humanity
during the holocaust. The diagram inserted within
the paragraph [figure x: consult appendix for
larger image & details] (The Milgram Experiment,
2004) is of the titular modus operandi that was
used as a basis for the experiment. Contemplating
the relevance or benefits of the operational procedures
adhered to during the execution of this experiment,
however, brings forth two conflicting ideological
perspectives. One is the scientific stance and
the other, quite inevitably, is the moral or ethical,
the social stance.
Let us first consider the argument that would obviously emerge from those lobbying the instrumental relevance of the experiment as breakthrough in the field of mind sciences; specifically speaking, within the field of psychology. This is since the study, particularly from the scientific standpoint of this socio-psychological tête-à-tête, provided an exceptional environment within which to scientifically explore conflicts between obedience to authority and moral views about not harming others. Consider, for instance, that upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, ‘teachers’ seemed to accept the response and continue shocking the ‘students’. This is something that continued in spite of the fact that some of the former were obviously and extremely uncomfortable in doing so (Stanley Milgram's Experiment, 2004). It is quite apparent, thus speaking, that the experiment did indeed yield relevant data in terms of the role of obedience to authority notwithstanding the particular immorality or lack of ethicality involved in the orders set forth by the respective authoritative source (s).
Take into consideration, for instance, the fact
that one of the significantly instrumental yielding
of the study was that it indicated there to be
more than a bare modicum of instrumentality to
be inherent to the role of authority within such
situations as those present in the experiment.
This is something that is attains an altogether
different light when considering the relativity
that it holds towards such situations as WWII,
where humans are witnessed partaking in and being
ripped apart by various forms of practiced torture.
These various forms of torture, if the results
of Milgram’s experiment are to be taken
seriously, could have been naught more than the
result of the soldiers carrying out orders that
had been given to them by their superiors (Milgram,
1967).
In the case of the experiment, for instance, the 'learner', without the knowledge of the teacher of course, had been specially trained for the experiment., the learner could be heard protesting through the adjoining wall as the shock level increased. He then began to shout. At 300 volts he began to kick the wall and at the highest level he no longer made any noise at all, not even answering the questions. Many of the teachers objected, pleading with the experimenter not to go on. The experimenter did not threaten them in any way, but gently convinced and encouraged them to continue by telling them that it was absolutely necessary. 65% of the subjects went all the way to the maximum level and virtually none of them stopped before 300 volts (Travers & Milgram, 1969). And thus arises one of the moral dilemmas present herein. The question is whether it was correct for soldiers to carry out the orders as expected of them or whether they should have rebelled upon the pretext of their moral conscience (Milgram, 1963). It is true indeed that Milgram’s experiment was relevant in concern to unveiling the possibility of the prevalence harm-inflicting tendencies within apparently normal, middle class individuals. In spite of this, however, it would be essential for one to consider that there are could be a variety circumstances, rather diverse in their collectivity, that could have been cited as the prime reason for the findings of the Milgram experiment.
And while this is clearly something that indicates
an element of naturally borne cruelty within the
human psyche, there are other factors to be considered
before ascertaining a particular verdict. Take
into consideration, for instance, the possibility
of a particular individual or individuals within
the experiment being in a condition of financial
desperation. This would obviously serve as a motivational
factor responsible for pushing the individual
in the ‘teacher’ role to continue
inflicting increasing pain upon person (s) in
the ‘student’ role. It is apparent
that the latter would bypass the aggravation of
any sense of humaneness or morality upon the pretext
of perceiving a financial reward (of $ 4.50) on
the other end of adhering to the orders at hand
in spite of their evident cruelty and immorality.
In addition to this, however, it would also be crucial to consider that, at the same time, it is essential that one take stock of the argument that presents themselves in retaliation to the scientific lobby. Take into consideration, for instance, that while the subjects established as ‘teachers’ in the experiment are accused of subservience to authority; the relevance of this is something that is partially clouded over when considering it in light of the negativity that has been shown to be present. This negativity is illustrated quite graphically when considering the core ideology responsible for Milgram’s incessant willfulness to complete the experiment.
The continued coaxing to convince teachers to
inflict harm upon their subjects is something
that has led more than a few researchers and theoreticians
to ponder the possibility of Milgram being ideologically
and morally incorrect as far as his experiment
was concerned. Take into consideration, for instance,
the psychologically imposing nature of the minutia
in concern to the details of the procedure that
individuals hired as ‘teachers’ had
to follow in order to land the job that they had
come to search out as a result of an advertisement
they had seen for a particular scientific or psychological
experiment. It would be essential to here consider
that Milgram's experiment has been criticized
upon the pretext of manipulatively utilizing the
prestige of science represented by the display
of technology, the clean white rooms and the experimenter
in his white coat. All these tend to be factors
that lead the subjects to attain a particular
perspective and behave in a way they never would
have within the course of their every day lives.
These are factors that are quite assertively indicative
of the negativity inherent to the experiment as
an effectual measure to explore conflicts between
obedience to authority and moral views about not
harming others.
Take into consideration, for instance, the fact that particular declines in obedience levels, from 65% to 21%, were documented to have an immediately proportionate relationship to the occasions when the experimenter left the room. This, in turn, brings us to the issue of whether or not the deception that was tactically used in the experiment was essential, and if so, if it was of advantage to the theoretical outcome of the experiment. In regard to this, however, it is essential to initially consider the relevance of the experiment exclusively from the scientifically perceptual standpoint of Milgram. This is since the scientific standpoint is practically adamant about the notion that deception was of key relevance to this experiment. In the case of the original Milgram experiment, for instance, as has been made quite apparent by now, it is evident that one of the prime motivational factors were the overtures of scientific authority and reliability that were especially accentuated within the external setting for the experiment. This is since these factors made for an environment within which the individuals participating as ‘teachers’ bestowed a major part of the moral and ethical breach and blame involved with hurting the ‘students’ upon those in charge; the experimenter (s). This is something that again stresses towards the instrumentality of altering an individual’s core perspective in concern to a particular theme.
It is quite apparent, thus speaking and taking
into consideration all that has been said and
discussed, that this experiment wasn’t really
a very good way to explore conflicts between obedience
to authority and moral views about not harming
others. While exceptional financial desperation
or strife stands out as one of the more relevant
ulterior motives that could alter the psychological
results gleaned from Milgram’s experiment,
extreme faith in the authoritative party’s/employee’s
better judgment stands out as another. Indeed,
in addition to faith in the authoritative party’s/employee’s
better judgment could also be, an individuals
moral beliefs can also overridden by an ingrained
sense of portraying obedience to the authoritative
figure (s) on account of that the latter’s
image of scientific superiority. This attains
a significant note when considering that the obedience
to authority dropped from 65% to 48% when Milgram
conducted the same tests in a set of run-down
offices with no association with the prestigious
Yale University.
This, furthermore, is something that is accentuated even more strongly when considering it in light of some of Milgram’s documentation of the dialogue of particularly sensitive ‘teachers’ (Blass, 1991). The following encompasses some of the more dramatic responses that were gleaned from teachers being continuously pushed forward to administer shocks of electricity steadily increasing in intensity: ‘ I can't stand it! I'm not going to kill that man in there! You hear him hollering? He’s hollering. He can't stand it. What's going to happen to him? I'm not going to get that man sick in here... know what I mean? I refuse to take the responsibility. He's in there hollering! [...] I don't mean to be rude, but I think you should look in on him. All you have to do is look in on him. [...] Something might have happened to the gentleman in there, sir ’ (Milgram, 1963).
Adhering to this perspective is something that
inevitably brings us into association with the
basic tenet of Milgram’s psychological theory
as he ascertained via his experiment. That is
to say that it indicates that there is an element
of cruelty that lies dormant within a large prevalence
of individuals fitting the average psychological
standard in terms of character traits. And consideration
of the fact that Milgram discovered this in as
much as tailoring the test to direct the subject's
moral beliefs against the demands of authority
is something that again reinforces the need for
the deception that was adhered to within the experiment
(Blass, 1992). The need for deception is something
that is justified in as much as the fact that
it provided an effectual canvas for monitoring
the response of those individuals who were in
the ‘teacher’ mode to the pain they
were ostensible inflicting on the ‘students’.
This, however, doesn’t have much of an impact
on the uncertainties brought forth by the possibility
of underlying factors affecting the individuals
in the ‘teacher’ mode.
In spite of the fact that the experiment does hint towards the existence of an inherent element of sadistic cruelty within the collective human psyche; I don’t think the study is a good way to explore conflicts between obedience to authority and moral views about not harming others. This is an opinion that I have eventually drifted towards as a result of appreciating the negativity of the politely persistent, psychologically tailored manner in which the experimenter (s) prodded the ‘teachers’ to continue shocking the ‘students’. Such lines as ‘ you must go on, there is no alternative ’ (Milgram, 1963) had an exceptionally driving effect on participants in spite of the fact that some of them were displaying symptoms tantamount to those observed prior to suffering from a nervous breakdown. Moreover, while more than a few of the participants were showing signs of abnormal stress and excitement by the time the experiment was somewhere near the middle; a good number showed residual sings of nervousness and psychological duress following the experiment.
Although the experiment was of observational relevance to the medical sector in terms of the stimulation of socio-psychologically inclined behavioral traits; it loses most of its valor when considering it’s basic characteristics from the moralistic point of view. It is, after all, ethically incorrect to treat humans as objectively as they appear to have been treated within the Milgram experiment. This is something that is especially emphasized upon when considering it in light of the disregard that the experimenters display for the emotional impact that their prodding obviously has on the group of participants. It would, moreover, be conclusively apt to acknowledge that though the experiment did have marginal theoretical relevance; it does not yield the potential to be categorized as an ultimately preferential way to explore conflicts between obedience to authority and moral views. This is something that is especially due to the fact that the manner in which the authority was portrayed appears to have the yielded the potential to be affected by several ulterior and external motives and factors. |