This experiment proves that authority and its obedience has to do with innate behaviour that we should do as told by the authority. In such cases responsibility of the consequences is not shared by the follower. This can be said through taking the example of terrorism, be it Serge Nechayev to present day Osama Bin Laden. They all had been the authoritative leaders under whose misguidance; the act of barbaric mass killing of innocent has been done. This would have not been possible without the support of misguided youth. They kill their own brethren and devastate their own community. (32037)
Every individual is trying to legitimise the authority in terms of science; a very "sweet" looking girl didn't think twice before giving heavy shocks. This is because of her being a biology student that she very easily rationalises with an important science experiment and doing away to ponder much about shock. When we are under authority and he/she takes the responsibility of our actions, we do not think much about the action. This maybe because of the fact that we do not have the confidence to follow our own course of action and consider it easier to follow the leader’s. Shweta 32094
According to the experiment 75% the teachers gave in to the professor’s orders despite finding it immoral to do so. There is lack of people in the community who can stand up for what is right and oppose what is wrong. There is more of technical leadership than adaptive leadership. People do not go beyond the rules for the sake of maintaining status quo or for the fear of being challenged. In a society where there are more of authority obedient persons, there is more stagnancy. There are a few agents of change who can lead the society from the front.
The conclusion drawn from this experiment was that participants just obey the orders of authorities irrespective of effect on the receiver from their action. Even today we can see some examples like this around us, common one is lathi charge or similar means used by police to control crowd. Most of the times police knew they are hurting innocent people still they continue with it because of orders from higher authority and some of them may even enjoy it. Sandesh N A 32090
The experiment clearly reflects the dominance of Animal Instincts on our behaviour. In our everyday life we do not display such traits, but it is not because we think it is immoral but we are socially obligated to be civilised. We are scared of the agency above in the power hierarchy about the possible consequences we might have to face if we violate the rules. In the experiment, the Scientist informed them that they will not be held responsible for their conduct. This relaxation of social obligations led them to display their true nature. Mayank Tiwari 32079
Stanley Milgram Experiment is just a simple example which can easily be generalised to human behaviour in our society. We have a usual tendency of not holding the responsibility towards whatever we do and we generally put all the blame on the authority which governs us. A very live example of what happened today when we were sticking our posters on the walls. Someone questioned us that why we are pasting our posters here as it is damaging the whitewashings, we all immediately respond that we are asked to put it here only. Shipra Sharma (32092)
We look forward to the leaders or the people having authority in our society for guidance. The desire for social acceptance dominates our conduct. No person wants to be the odd one out. Legitimization of our actions leads to greater acceptance in the society. This is also one of the reasons why the participants preferred to continue when the Scientist legitimized their action by attaching scientific value to it. The biology student appreciated scientific value probably because of her grooming so she continued whereas the pianist (an artist) felt that inflicting pain is inhuman so he refused to continue further. Mayank Tiwari 32079
Milgram's experiment shows that "normal" people who otherwise would never willingly inflict potentially lethal pain to other somehow do it when a leader tells them to do so. Their belief that the leader knows the right thing or knows what he is doing allows them to do immoral acts such as in the experiment. It is not that they lose their sense of judgement, it is that they in that moment they find it easier to obey and shift all the responsibility of the action on the leadership.
Under an authority, one can even carry out extreme activities due to the trust and faith in the correctness of the orders and decisions of the authority (like the participants in the experiment believed that it was being conducted for a scientific study and hence justifiable) Also when we are sure that the blame and criticism would not fall on us and when others are also following the same orders and performing similar acts, then one tends to relax and seizes to himself/herself analyse whether their acts are justified and if the outcomes are right or wrong. Ajay (32053)
The reality of obedience is that the action carried out most likely corresponds to the motives of those exercising authority and not that of the actor. The disappearance of the sense of responsibility for ones owns action is the most significant consequence of submission to authority. Moreover, the most scary inference from the experiment was how little a push was needed for 3/4th of the subjects to cross that psychic boundary that separates the average person from the dehumanized. It explains why very few challenge authority – obedience is an entrenched pseudo-quality of social conditioning. Jeevan Krishnakumar(32073)
Another dimension to the experiment is that circumstances also make people obey an authority. Taking an example of an employee in a bank who is not supposed to divulge any confidential information of a customer, in which he has no stake, to an outsider on the insistence of the manager. The employee though may question the order but obey the manager who is legitimate authority here in order to please him. This shows that many a times people are coerced to follow what an authority asks for, letting up moral and ethical values. varun 32046
'Violence can be Justified'.. from a soldier to a militant, from an hooligan to a guerilla, from police to an individual in a mob, violence can be justified. This experiment proves that even from a common man violence is absolutely justified given that the blame is not on the person. Though some moral came in the mind of subject involved in the experiment, but when they were told that if anything goes wrong, it won't be their responsibility, everyone continued with the experiment. Gurpreet Singh 32066
It was very well proved in the experiment that when it comes to activities like crime, death penalty and other anti-social activities it is the authority which is responsible. But how much they are responsible? Is it due to critical shift of viewpoint? Is it always the same irrespective of the situation? I mean terrorism, crowd control by police, and military action can all of these could be placed in the same platform. I have serious doubt about it and I think these things need to be discussed in detail keeping all factors into consideration. Rajkamal Rawat 32035
It was mind-boggling to see 65% of participants exhibiting the true innate human behaviour capable of harming others if they are instructed to do so by the person wielding authority. They just see themselves as the agent of external authority and in process of doing so they divest themselves of the responsibility of their actions. This experiment highlighted that in challenging conditions, the individuals insulate themselves from decision making and leave it for their group of reference and its legitimate authority to decide and simply be their instrument by obeying the instructions to carry out the task. Ashish (32010)
As the experiment was a social science experiment, it was considered legitimate by the volunteers who agreed to participate after knowing the terms of the experiment. Majority of the volunteers (type A) found it difficult to act according to their rational due to their subjugate position under the authority. Reactions of some volunteers (type B) reflected their latent tendencies of harming others which they didn’t express under normal situations. Type A and B volunteers participated till the end as they knew that the authority will be responsible for their actions. Very few volunteers acted rationally and refused to obey the authority. Prerna Gupta (p32030)
In the experiment, 65% of people gave shocks to another stranger for ‘advancement of science’. Some people were smiling while giving shocks, making them appear happy to inflict pain. The experiment showed we all are violent by nature. I would say even in absence of authority, many of us would engage in violence against others, if given an opportunity. For instance, many children pull the tails of puppies and beat them, thus, finding sadistic pleasure. I guess we all are becoming more violent. The success of violent games is another example of the violence that resides within us. –Ankush khanna
19 comments:
This experiment proves that authority and its obedience has to do with innate behaviour that we should do as told by the authority. In such cases responsibility of the consequences is not shared by the follower. This can be said through taking the example of terrorism, be it Serge Nechayev to present day Osama Bin Laden. They all had been the authoritative leaders under whose misguidance; the act of barbaric mass killing of innocent has been done. This would have not been possible without the support of misguided youth. They kill their own brethren and devastate their own community.
(32037)
Every individual is trying to legitimise the authority in terms of science; a very "sweet" looking girl didn't think twice before giving heavy shocks. This is because of her being a biology student that she very easily rationalises with an important science experiment and doing away to ponder much about shock. When we are under authority and he/she takes the responsibility of our actions, we do not think much about the action. This maybe because of the fact that we do not have the confidence to follow our own course of action and consider it easier to follow the leader’s.
Shweta
32094
According to the experiment 75% the teachers gave in to the professor’s orders despite finding it immoral to do so. There is lack of people in the community who can stand up for what is right and oppose what is wrong. There is more of technical leadership than adaptive leadership. People do not go beyond the rules for the sake of maintaining status quo or for the fear of being challenged. In a society where there are more of authority obedient persons, there is more stagnancy. There are a few agents of change who can lead the society from the front.
Arshia Gupta (32057)
The conclusion drawn from this experiment was that participants just obey the orders of authorities irrespective of effect on the receiver from their action. Even today we can see some examples like this around us, common one is lathi charge or similar means used by police to control crowd. Most of the times police knew they are hurting innocent people still they continue with it because of orders from higher authority and some of them may even enjoy it.
Sandesh N A
32090
The experiment clearly reflects the dominance of Animal Instincts on our behaviour. In our everyday life we do not display such traits, but it is not because we think it is immoral but we are socially obligated to be civilised. We are scared of the agency above in the power hierarchy about the possible consequences we might have to face if we violate the rules. In the experiment, the Scientist informed them that they will not be held responsible for their conduct. This relaxation of social obligations led them to display their true nature.
Mayank Tiwari
32079
Stanley Milgram Experiment is just a simple example which can easily be generalised to human behaviour in our society. We have a usual tendency of not holding the responsibility towards whatever we do and we generally put all the blame on the authority which governs us. A very live example of what happened today when we were sticking our posters on the walls. Someone questioned us that why we are pasting our posters here as it is damaging the whitewashings, we all immediately respond that we are asked to put it here only.
Shipra Sharma
(32092)
We look forward to the leaders or the people having authority in our society for guidance. The desire for social acceptance dominates our conduct. No person wants to be the odd one out. Legitimization of our actions leads to greater acceptance in the society. This is also one of the reasons why the participants preferred to continue when the Scientist legitimized their action by attaching scientific value to it. The biology student appreciated scientific value probably because of her grooming so she continued whereas the pianist (an artist) felt that inflicting pain is inhuman so he refused to continue further.
Mayank Tiwari
32079
Milgram's experiment shows that "normal" people who otherwise would never willingly inflict potentially lethal pain to other somehow do it when a leader tells them to do so. Their belief that the leader knows the right thing or knows what he is doing allows them to do immoral acts such as in the experiment. It is not that they lose their sense of judgement, it is that they in that moment they find it easier to obey and shift all the responsibility of the action on the leadership.
Himadri Sarkar
32068
Under an authority, one can even carry out extreme activities due to the trust and faith in the correctness of the orders and decisions of the authority (like the participants in the experiment believed that it was being conducted for a scientific study and hence justifiable)
Also when we are sure that the blame and criticism would not fall on us and when others are also following the same orders and performing similar acts, then one tends to relax and seizes to himself/herself analyse whether their acts are justified and if the outcomes are right or wrong.
Ajay (32053)
The reality of obedience is that the action carried out most likely corresponds to the motives of those exercising authority and not that of the actor. The disappearance of the sense of responsibility for ones owns action is the most significant consequence of submission to authority. Moreover, the most scary inference from the experiment was how little a push was needed for 3/4th of the subjects to cross that psychic boundary that separates the average person from the dehumanized. It explains why very few challenge authority – obedience is an entrenched pseudo-quality of social conditioning.
Jeevan Krishnakumar(32073)
Another dimension to the experiment is that circumstances also make people obey an authority. Taking an example of an employee in a bank who is not supposed to divulge any confidential information of a customer, in which he has no stake, to an outsider on the insistence of the manager. The employee though may question the order but obey the manager who is legitimate authority here in order to please him.
This shows that many a times people are coerced to follow what an authority asks for, letting up moral and ethical values.
varun
32046
'Violence can be Justified'.. from a soldier to a militant, from an hooligan to a guerilla, from police to an individual in a mob, violence can be justified. This experiment proves that even from a common man violence is absolutely justified given that the blame is not on the person. Though some moral came in the mind of subject involved in the experiment, but when they were told that if anything goes wrong, it won't be their responsibility, everyone continued with the experiment.
Gurpreet Singh
32066
It was very well proved in the experiment that when it comes to activities like crime, death penalty and other anti-social activities it is the authority which is responsible. But how much they are responsible? Is it due to critical shift of viewpoint? Is it always the same irrespective of the situation? I mean terrorism, crowd control by police, and military action can all of these could be placed in the same platform. I have serious doubt about it and I think these things need to be discussed in detail keeping all factors into consideration.
Rajkamal Rawat
32035
It was mind-boggling to see 65% of participants exhibiting the true innate human behaviour capable of harming others if they are instructed to do so by the person wielding authority. They just see themselves as the agent of external authority and in process of doing so they divest themselves of the responsibility of their actions. This experiment highlighted that in challenging conditions, the individuals insulate themselves from decision making and leave it for their group of reference and its legitimate authority to decide and simply be their instrument by obeying the instructions to carry out the task.
Ashish (32010)
As the experiment was a social science experiment, it was considered legitimate by the volunteers who agreed to participate after knowing the terms of the experiment. Majority of the volunteers (type A) found it difficult to act according to their rational due to their subjugate position under the authority. Reactions of some volunteers (type B) reflected their latent tendencies of harming others which they didn’t express under normal situations. Type A and B volunteers participated till the end as they knew that the authority will be responsible for their actions. Very few volunteers acted rationally and refused to obey the authority.
Prerna Gupta (p32030)
In the experiment, 65% of people gave shocks to another stranger for ‘advancement of science’. Some people were smiling while giving shocks, making them appear happy to inflict pain. The experiment showed we all are violent by nature. I would say even in absence of authority, many of us would engage in violence against others, if given an opportunity. For instance, many children pull the tails of puppies and beat them, thus, finding sadistic pleasure. I guess we all are becoming more violent. The success of violent games is another example of the violence that resides within us.
–Ankush khanna
Post a Comment