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.