The Milgram Experiment
-1
Loner
the People's Senpai
Most of us like to perceive ourselves as good people, but are we really? An experiment was conducted in 1961 by Stanley Milgram which he called The Milgram Experiment.
The main idea of the experiment was to test how far people would go when inflicting pain under an authority figure. The experiment was set so that there was an experimenter/doctor, a teacher, and a learner. The experimenter and learner were both actors while the teacher was the actual experiment subject. The teacher was asked to induce a series of increasing voltage electric shocks only after the learner incorrectly answered a fair memorization question. Before the experiment began, the learner was sure to address that he had a heart problem only to increase the stress and concern of the teacher. In actuality, the voltage machine never produced voltage and all sounds of pain the teacher heard were pre-recorded by the actor/learner. Once the experiment reached 150 volts recorded voice would ask to leave and complain their heart was starting to hurt. The experimenter would assure them everything was safe and that is was essential to continue the experiment. 70% of the subject continued past the critical point where mercy was asked. My question to you
What would you have done in this situation?
Please base your decision off of how you would have acted at that point time but not how you would have acted after learning the final result.
Honestly, I probably would have been part of that 70%.
Would you have changed the way you acted simply because it was the right thing to do or because you were susceptible to judgement from other based on the decisions you made?
In other words do we all really set our own morals or just base them after what other think.
Is there such a thing as uniformed morality, if not, could there ever be?
Could we ever evolve above these flaws of ours?
Though we like to think of ourselves as above such barbaric acts, the truth is, we humans are still very primitive.
I ask you fellow Fakku'ers, whats your thought on the subject?
[spoil]
The main idea of the experiment was to test how far people would go when inflicting pain under an authority figure. The experiment was set so that there was an experimenter/doctor, a teacher, and a learner. The experimenter and learner were both actors while the teacher was the actual experiment subject. The teacher was asked to induce a series of increasing voltage electric shocks only after the learner incorrectly answered a fair memorization question. Before the experiment began, the learner was sure to address that he had a heart problem only to increase the stress and concern of the teacher. In actuality, the voltage machine never produced voltage and all sounds of pain the teacher heard were pre-recorded by the actor/learner. Once the experiment reached 150 volts recorded voice would ask to leave and complain their heart was starting to hurt. The experimenter would assure them everything was safe and that is was essential to continue the experiment. 70% of the subject continued past the critical point where mercy was asked. My question to you
What would you have done in this situation?
Please base your decision off of how you would have acted at that point time but not how you would have acted after learning the final result.
Honestly, I probably would have been part of that 70%.
Would you have changed the way you acted simply because it was the right thing to do or because you were susceptible to judgement from other based on the decisions you made?
In other words do we all really set our own morals or just base them after what other think.
Is there such a thing as uniformed morality, if not, could there ever be?
Could we ever evolve above these flaws of ours?
Though we like to think of ourselves as above such barbaric acts, the truth is, we humans are still very primitive.
I ask you fellow Fakku'ers, whats your thought on the subject?
[spoil]
0
Gravity cat
the adequately amused
If that was me and I was completely unaware of the fact that it was just all an act, I probably would have stopped for the sake of their wellbeing.
It's not worth continuing the experiment if it puts their health at risk, in my eyes.
It's not worth continuing the experiment if it puts their health at risk, in my eyes.
0
The only thing that I feel gets in the way of me making the right decision is the fact the experimenter says it is safe also the fact that I'm not sure that when your heart is having trouble does it signal pain I always though there was different signals but none of that matters because they ask to leave I'd say OK not any thing to do with their well being but because they just want to leave.
0
All the Milgram experiments showed was that people are likely to follow what they're ordered to do by superiors. Many times the people involved are rather sad about what they're doing, and their empathy is screaming at them to stop, but the authority telling them to do otherwise is overriding it.
It doesn't mean we're bad people, it means some people are naturally more submissive than others.
As for people being bad in general, I'm reminded of the Ray Comfort "Good person quiz"
Allow me to summarize it
Ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? If yes, you're a thief
Ever lusted in your heart? If yes, you're an adulterer(just bare with me)
Ever hated in your heart? If yes, you're a murderer
Ever take the lord's name in vain? If yes, blasphemer.
When you look at all this, it adds up to being a thieving, adultering murdering blasphemer.
...But that's absolutely retarded. Me taking a pencil off a classmate is FAR different than someone stealing a big screen plasma, or robbing people at gunpoint. Lusting in my heart isn't adultery, and even if I was married and wanted other women, as long as I didn't go after them, what's the problem with looking at them? Hating anyone certainly isn't akin to Jeffrey friggen Dahmer's actions, and saying "Oh my god" in my opinion, isn't bad at all.
What's good and bad is subjective to the person defining good and bad. There's no absolute standard that we're violating when we cause harm to others because we were ordered to or something equally silly. The experiments were merely an attempt to explain why otherwise normal people would follow horrible orders from their nazi superiors back in WWII, not to find out if people sucked.
It doesn't mean we're bad people, it means some people are naturally more submissive than others.
As for people being bad in general, I'm reminded of the Ray Comfort "Good person quiz"
Allow me to summarize it
Ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? If yes, you're a thief
Ever lusted in your heart? If yes, you're an adulterer(just bare with me)
Ever hated in your heart? If yes, you're a murderer
Ever take the lord's name in vain? If yes, blasphemer.
When you look at all this, it adds up to being a thieving, adultering murdering blasphemer.
...But that's absolutely retarded. Me taking a pencil off a classmate is FAR different than someone stealing a big screen plasma, or robbing people at gunpoint. Lusting in my heart isn't adultery, and even if I was married and wanted other women, as long as I didn't go after them, what's the problem with looking at them? Hating anyone certainly isn't akin to Jeffrey friggen Dahmer's actions, and saying "Oh my god" in my opinion, isn't bad at all.
What's good and bad is subjective to the person defining good and bad. There's no absolute standard that we're violating when we cause harm to others because we were ordered to or something equally silly. The experiments were merely an attempt to explain why otherwise normal people would follow horrible orders from their nazi superiors back in WWII, not to find out if people sucked.
0
I studied this in my ethics class and here is video of someone who copied the experiment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w
0
I seen those experiments before on TV and it was shocking to see how humans have no restraint on themselves when it comes to inflicting pain on others....
Some wanted to go on with no facial expression..
others laughed while doing it...
and some even grew aggressive and done it anyways....
but 8 out of 10 continued with the experiment even though they knew in their minds they would inflict damage on a person they have no acquaintance with.
The sad thing is... almost every human being is born with a killer instinct no matter how well educated they are... because in our subconscious mind we wish to inflict pain on everybody because in a weird way we are all selfish.
It's better not to test the limits of restraints on a human being because it could end in a bad surprise.
Some wanted to go on with no facial expression..
others laughed while doing it...
and some even grew aggressive and done it anyways....
but 8 out of 10 continued with the experiment even though they knew in their minds they would inflict damage on a person they have no acquaintance with.
The sad thing is... almost every human being is born with a killer instinct no matter how well educated they are... because in our subconscious mind we wish to inflict pain on everybody because in a weird way we are all selfish.
It's better not to test the limits of restraints on a human being because it could end in a bad surprise.
0
It's more of a survival-of-the-fittest thing. You gotta be able to hunt and defend yourself. THEN it becomes selfishness after you're accustomed to being raised in modern times.
I probably wouldn't have even gone through with the shocking because of my experience working with heart patients. Having heart problems and receiving shocks-even little ones- is a serious thing to consider.
I probably wouldn't have even gone through with the shocking because of my experience working with heart patients. Having heart problems and receiving shocks-even little ones- is a serious thing to consider.
0
rubberrazors wrote...
It's more of a survival-of-the-fittest thing. You gotta be able to hunt and defend yourself. THEN it becomes selfishness after you're accustomed to being raised in modern times.I probably wouldn't have even gone through with the shocking because of my experience working with heart patients. Having heart problems and receiving shocks-even little ones- is a serious thing to consider.
I understand your sentiment...but please don't conflate survival of the fittest with a liberal view of social darwinism.
Too many people try and characterize secularism as this empathy-less "The weak die off" silliness, and then assert that it's the logical conclusion.
0
Loner
the People's Senpai
When the experiment was reenacted recently on the show "Curiosity," they performed another test that wasn't part of the original. Another actor was added to play the part of a second "teacher" in which to flip the switches while the unaware participant/teacher sat beside them. The actor teacher would purposely refuse to continue after the magic 150 volt where mercy was begged for. After witnessing someone else refuse to continue, almost all participants would refuse to continue as well. So in light of these harsh results there is still hope yet, and all it takes is one voice to stand up and say "NO."
0
I would categorize it under mob/pack mentality. I am aware that three people are not a mob, please bare with me. Essentially, we humans are a social organism that typically works in groups. It is fairly natural for group leaders to emerge in any group setting, just as followers are likely to appear. So we have those who will lead and those who will follow.
Furthermore, starting from early childhood, through compulsory education, and later into most other forms of education and work we are trained to follow orders. This is not to say we are slaves, or even incapable of independent thought, but merely there is a strong tendency to follow orders. If this was not the case there could be no basis for a society as it requires the obedience to the laws, to some extents.
To answer DanteCount's questions.
1. I would like to say of course I would not intentionally inflict harm on another human being. But truthfully I would probably follow my orders until I was told to stop. My sympathy would probably be blocked in the same way it normally is when I see someone in trouble, I unconsciously think of a way that it is their own fault and therefore not my responsibility.
2. Most likely I would feel uncomfortable causing pain to the other person, but I sure I would convince myself that it was for the best or some other idea to prevent myself from accepting the fault of my actions.
3. Like so many other forms of thought control it would not work on all, excluding of course sociopaths. My basis for this comes from looking at areas with very strong religious believes where heresy is taken as a crime. Even under extreme conditions dissension exists. As dissension may always exist in human cultures.
4. In order to evolve beyond these "flaws" you have to make an argument that these flaws inhibit a persons ability to survive and to reproduce. I suppose you could give children who have yet to reach the capacity for sexual reproduction and give them the Milgram test. Should they fail you could then execute or spade/neuter the child to prevent them from passing on these on favorable traits, but you run into the issue of the ones most suited to performing these actions are the ones you seek to remove from society. So my answer is no.
Furthermore, starting from early childhood, through compulsory education, and later into most other forms of education and work we are trained to follow orders. This is not to say we are slaves, or even incapable of independent thought, but merely there is a strong tendency to follow orders. If this was not the case there could be no basis for a society as it requires the obedience to the laws, to some extents.
To answer DanteCount's questions.
1. I would like to say of course I would not intentionally inflict harm on another human being. But truthfully I would probably follow my orders until I was told to stop. My sympathy would probably be blocked in the same way it normally is when I see someone in trouble, I unconsciously think of a way that it is their own fault and therefore not my responsibility.
2. Most likely I would feel uncomfortable causing pain to the other person, but I sure I would convince myself that it was for the best or some other idea to prevent myself from accepting the fault of my actions.
3. Like so many other forms of thought control it would not work on all, excluding of course sociopaths. My basis for this comes from looking at areas with very strong religious believes where heresy is taken as a crime. Even under extreme conditions dissension exists. As dissension may always exist in human cultures.
4. In order to evolve beyond these "flaws" you have to make an argument that these flaws inhibit a persons ability to survive and to reproduce. I suppose you could give children who have yet to reach the capacity for sexual reproduction and give them the Milgram test. Should they fail you could then execute or spade/neuter the child to prevent them from passing on these on favorable traits, but you run into the issue of the ones most suited to performing these actions are the ones you seek to remove from society. So my answer is no.