Essay on Stanley Milgram - 1913 Words

This quote, by Stanley Milgram (1974, p. 205), exemplifies the debate that exists around the topic of obedience. Obedient behaviours have been studied in Milgram’s famous obedience experiments, and evidence of atrocities being carried out as a result of obedience can be seen in situations such as the holocaust in World War Two (Mastroianni, 2000) and more recent events such as (My Lai). This essay will explain both sides of the debate, arguing for situation and individual factors that influence people to behave in particular ways. Therefore, an interactional approach is argued here, that the situation and individual influences cannot be disentangled. A brief explanation of Milgram’s baseline study (1963) will be introduced first, before†¦show more content†¦Proximity between the participant and the learner was changed, with it ranging from the learner not being heard or seen at all (yielding 100% obedience), to the participant holding down the learners hand and arm onto a metal plate, which they believed was shocking the learner (decreasing obedience to 30%). Milgram himself reported significant differences between these proximity conditions, but when Blass (1991) evaluated Milgram’s (1963) work, he reports the analyses and shows that regardless of whether a participant is close to the learner physically and emotionally, they still acted in a similar way. The fact that Milgram did not report these analyses also shows how there might have been some selective reporting in what he wanted the public to see. Blass’ (1991) analyses display how the situation was not necessarily that powerful, and that the participants acted in similar ways regardless of the different types of contexts they were put in. Furthermore, there was also another version of the study (state exactly which experiment this was) in which the participants could decide for themselves how much voltage to shock the learner to. It comes as a relief that they shocked significantly lower than the baseline conditions, showing that when the situation allows freedom, the individual can make a decision. However, I would argue that even though they had the freedom to administer the shock level of their choice, they still actually administered aShow MoreRelated The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram Essay812 Words   |  4 Pages â€Å"The Perils of Obedience† was written by Stanley Milgram in 1974. In the essay he describes his experiments on obedience to authority. I feel as though this is a great psychology essay and will be used in psychology 101 classes for generations to come. The essay describes how people are willing to do almost anything that they are told no matter how immoral the action is or how much pain it may cause.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  This essay even though it was written in 1974 is still used today because of its historicalRead MoreThe Background on the Stanley Milgram Theory Essay1088 Words   |  5 PagesThe social psychology theory that I will be analyzing is based on the Stanley Milgram experiment done in 1965 following the start of the Nazi war. He was curios on all the violence taking place during this time. As a Jew himself, he wanted to find out whether or not the Adolf Eichmann accomplice had the same intent and hate towards the Jewish people during the holocaust. Based on Solomon Asch’s past experiments on conformity, Milgram’s experiment was done to determine whether or not the power ofRead MoreEssay about Obedience to Authority by Stanley Milgram2387 Words   |  10 PagesStanley Milgram’s 1963 studies into obedience have provided important and shocking insights into the power of authority. The study set out to discover how obedient people really are. Debat e and controversy have surrounded the study since the results were first published. Predictions made by psychologists before the experiment proved dramatically inaccurate. The experiment led volunteers to believe they were administering increasingly painful and dangerous electric shocks to another volunteer forRead MoreStanley Milgram vs. Diana Baumrind Essay1169 Words   |  5 PagesThe Controversy of Obedience A classic experiment on the natural obedience of individuals was designed and tested by a Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram. The test forced participants to either go against their morals or violate authority. For the experiment, two people would come into the lab after being told they were testing memory loss, though only one of them was actually being tested. The unaware individual, called the â€Å"teacher† would sit in a separate room, administering memory relatedRead MoreObedience, Disobedience, And Disobedience1687 Words   |  7 Pagesshown in the novel â€Å"Holes† by Louis Sachar because the main character, Stanley, is sent to a child correction camp and has to obey the upper authority Mr. Sir. He starts out being an obedient child and following all Mr. Sir’s rules but then as he begins to see the real reason he is told to dig holes in a barren desert he rebels against Mr. Sir. These acts of obedience and disobedience are then analyzed and explaine d by; â€Å"Milgram Experiment† by Saul McLead, â€Å"Opinions and Social Pressure† by SolomonRead MoreThe Ethics Of Psychological Studies1219 Words   |  5 PagesIn this essay, the ethics of psychological studies carried out in the past will be reviewed. In the current contemporary environment many psychological studies are now seen as being unethical by many psychologists. Both theory and information relating to the psychology studies will be addressed. This essay will also outline the ethical responsibilities of the psychologists carrying out psychological research studies. The two psychological studies that would not be considered ethical today that willRead MoreAnalysis Of Stanley Milgram s Perils Of Disobedience 1372 Words   |  6 PagesIn Stanley Milgram’s essay, â€Å"Perils of Disobedience†, an experiment was conducted to test an individual’s obedience from authority when conflicting with morally incorrect orders. Following the conclusion of World War Two, Milgram’s essay was published in Harper’s Magazine, which appeals to a national audience and yields an array of content from different contextual backgrounds. As Milgram reports the results of his experiment, he provides descriptive details of many of the subjects and their behaviorsRead MoreStanley Milgrams Experiment961 Words   |  4 PagesStanley Milgram s Experiment In Stanley Milgram s essay Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority, the self-proclaimed social psychologist conducted a study while working as a psychologist at Yale University. The primary goal of Milgram s experiment was to measure the desire of the participants to shock a learner in a controlled situation. The experiment was based on three primary roles: the authoritative figure, the learner, and the teachers. The authoritative figure instructedRead MoreThe Milgram Experiment1142 Words   |  5 PagesThe Milgram Experiment Stanley Milgram, a famous social psychologist, and student of Solomon Asch, conducted a controversial experiment in 1961, investigating obedience to authority (1974). The experiment was held to see if a subject would do something an authority figure tells them, even if it conflicts with their personal beliefs and morals. He even once said, The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situationRead MoreThe Ethical Standards Of Modern Psychology1320 Words   |  6 PagesThere are many research studies conducted in the past that would not be considered ethical today. This essay will review two research methods, whilst taking into account the ethical standards of modern psychology. The focus of this essay will be; ‘Landis’ Facial Expressions Experiment 1924’ carried out by Carney Landis and ‘’Milgram’s Obedience Experiment’ carried out by Stanley Milgram. B oth experiments were carried out under immoral circumstances and perhaps should never have been allowed to take

Ethics in Contemporary Society Free Essays

Presently, Americans are comfortable relating ethics to individuality. Often times, American citizens expresses their right of freedoms to enhance their own sense of ethics or relativity. In defining relativism, moral principles are a matter of personal feelings and individual preference. We will write a custom essay sample on Ethics in Contemporary Society or any similar topic only for you Order Now As for individual moral relativism, figuring out what is moral and immoral in specific circumstances differs according to the person. On another note, moral relativists have a disbelief in universal truths or common law. This essay will examine and highlight major details about problems surrounding individual moral relativism and cultural moral relativism. It will reflect post-modern and modern methods of belief in order to exhibit its valuableness in ethical decision-making in overcoming problems (Owen, 2011). In particular, it argues that abstract theories of either individual or subjective moral relativism are fruitless for understanding humans. What’s more, it tends to limit humans to egocentric people or hamper the development of distinctiveness through division and relativism. It is disputed that innovativeness excludes other styles of understanding. It utters reverence and celebrates the variance; it has rendered the pursuit for any kind of meaning inaudible (Reno, 2012). To bypass these restrictions and to extend the resistance of ethical relativism this article draws substantially from the research of Lawrence Kohlberg. He is a well-known psychologist that is recognized for the moral stages of development. Moreover, his research theory moves closer by claiming cultural relativists are individuals trapped in the conventional stage of ethical development (Garz, 2010). This ethical development model greets and enriches narrative understanding. As this essay continues to explore the world of  ethical/moral relativism, it will summarize topics like cultural moral relativism, individual and subjective relativism. In addition, it will review Kohlberg’s moral stages of development and why he believes that many cultural relativists are trapped in a particular stage. As a final touch, this essay will discuss personal beliefs and experiences in relation to each topic, and why I agree or disagree with these reasoning. What is more moral relativism? Previously moral relativism was defined as being right or wrong, and the second deals with the difference between an objective and a subjective truth. Thinking that ethical truth is biased, moral relativists often react to moral conclusions about homosexual behavior (Klikauer, 2011). To these individuals, the term homosexual is rubbish because everyone’s morality is equivalent. In short, nobody has a right to a morality that is incumbent on others. Being objective (individual) honest is recognized as the best choice; however, it is not the easiest decision (Owen, 2011). For example, parents or educators do not chastise students merely for getting their answer wrong in Math problems. For many students, their mistakes would be coherent, not moral. Another example would be a husband beats his wife is simply indecent; therefore, he’ is considered as being immoral. Based on Quintelier Fessler (2012) findings, cultural relativism is considered as an interpretation that all views, customs, and ethics are comparative to the individual within his or her own societal environment. Therefore, individuals put their cultural beliefs at the front of comparative ethical decision-making. Basically, right and wrong are culture-specific; however, what is right in one culture may be considered as corrupt in another culture (Owen, 2011). Being there is no universal code of morality, individuals does not have the right to judge another societal traditions. At the conventional stage of ethical development, each person respects the beliefs of his or her group, family, or nation, as important, despite of the abrupt and apparent concerns (Klikauer, 2011). This stance is not just conformity to subjective expectations and social order, but also one of loyalty. According to Kohlberg, cultural relativist is often stuck in this stage due to their beliefs and cultural upbringing. Furthermore, I support this stance for different reasons. For example, I was raised to believe in Christianity is the right path to follow because my parents instill that religion into me as a child. In conclusion, many philosophers have both defended and opposed moral relativism. Recent research argues that normative moral theories should be controlled and explore by psychologists to grasp a more in-depth understanding (Quintelier Fessler, 2012). Researchers questioned the thought that individuals are or can be moral relativists. If so, can being a moral relativist affect can an individual’s moral functioning. This research is underutilized in theorists’ normative philosophies of relativism; all together, the pragmatic work is abstractly incoherent (Quintelier Fessler, 2012). The main objective of this assignment is to assimilate ethical and practical work on limitations about normative relativism. From my perspective, I support the individual and cultural relativity. As an African female, customs, traditions and religions played an essential role in my childhood as well as my growth. Biblical teachings were molded into my mind, heart, body and soul. My grandparents are the root to my development and ethical beliefs. How to cite Ethics in Contemporary Society, Papers

Stalins Corruption free essay sample

He certainly did have cause to believe in the power of a humans will as he experienced it in himself firsthand, having had extraordinary willpower and perseverance (He didnt call himself Man of Steel for nothing, folks), rising up from the lowly station of alcoholics son in Georgia to one of the biggest monsters in human history, supposedly killing more than Hitler. Exactly how did he do this? Why? And how did his corruption reach such extents as to do all this for power? Josef Stalin (originally named Josef Djugashvili) was born in Gori, a violent town in eastern Georgia, on the twenty-first of December, in 1878, to his parents Ketevan Geladze and Besarion Jughashvili. He lived for seventy-four more years, and in his time living became the totalitarian dictator over all of the Soviet Union. By the time he died in 1953, he was extremely corrupt. How, in these seventy-four years, did he get so corrupt? This essay answers this. Stalin took advantage of the weakness of the early Communist system to attain power. He did this because of his ambitious and power-hungry personality which, in part, had been caused by his troubled personal history. The corrupt actions of Joseph Stalin were made possible by the newly employed and therefore rather weak political system of Communism but were mostly caused by his power-hungry personality and troubled personal history, which led to the power having an extreme effect on him. The actual power did the corrupting, but these personal factors primed him for it. Stalin took advantage of the youth of the Communist system to gain power. He gained power from this because the rules of Communism werent set in stone, firmly established, and not everybody was thoroughly educated about Communism, and this way he could lie about the systems rules or develop his own to suit himself. In other words, Stalin got an almost clean slate to work off of. Stalin taking advantage of Communisms novelty is shown when he  simplified (or, perhaps more accurately, simply lied about) the words and works of Lenin. As it says in a well-informed articleIn bringing the message from the stratosphere to the ground, Stalin did for Lenin what, in a different context, Lenin had done for Marx (Pereira, 2). What did they do? Simplify. Twist meanings. Each time the message got into new hands, the meaning changed a little bit to suit their interests, but they still credited the respected people before them, so that they would seem like these people. Stalin took concepts over common folks heads, and brought it down to be understandable, in black and white without any gray tones, basically paraphrasing Lenins works (tweaking a bit here and there), making it simpler and easier for mass consumption. He gave people junk food speeches. He did this because he didnt care whether people were actually informed about the system they were living in, as long as they had reverenceaccording to Isaac Deutscher, he believed in information being pushed down their [the peoples] throats (Pereira, 4). Some of the key words in all of this are tweaking a bit, because tweak, Stalin did. After Lenin died, Stalin played the part of impromptu spokesperson for him, giving speeches like the famous oath of devotion to the just-deceased Lenin in which he said that In leaving us, Comrade Lenin ordered us to hold high and keep pure the great title of member of the Party. We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin, that we shall honourably fulfil this thy commandment In leaving us, Comrade Lenin ordered us to guard the unity of our Party like the apple of our eye. We vow to thee, Comrade Lenin, that we shall fulfil this thy commandment, too In leaving us, Comrade Lenin ordered us to guard and strengthen the dictatorship of the proletariat, etcetera. In this speech he made many feel-good generalizations, similar to the propaganda technique Glittering Generalities, using words and terms like honourably, pure, great, and apple of our eye, and all the while complimenting himself and flattering his audience. By acting as if his words were indirectly Lenins, Stalin could say almost any number of things with the people agreeing out of respect for Lenin. This relates to the propaganda technique Testimonial. There were other ways that he took advantage of how Communism wasthe omnipotent and omnicompetent boss was still the norm in a society so recently under Czarist authority (Pereira, 5). Because of this, Stalin could easily claim supremacy over the people of Russia, because they were used to this. Part of what helped Stalin attain so much power and therefore get so corrupt was all of this taking advantage of not completely set rules. But why did he want to take advantage of this for power? He did this because of his power-hungry personality. Stalins having a power-hungry personality is a big part of what made him corrupt, and is also a part of his corruption. Not many will dispute this, especially once faced with evidenceStalins craving for power is evident in many areas. He certainly had a lot of will-power to do as much as he did! One such example of this is accentuated by him opportunism and likeness to a chameleon; he would do almost anything to attain power, not having scruples or paying attention to ideals (although he harnessed those of the people to gain power! Stalin performed his great turn-about in late 1927 and took over the left analysis (Pereira, 5). This is interesting because Stalin had been on the more conservative right side of Communist politics. So what caused him to switch? The obvious answer is the sentence after, where it says that he was reaping clear political benefits. Looking deeper, he switched primarily because he needed an enemy. Robert Tucker depicts Stalin as the prey of his own deceit, saying that In Stalins mind, the hero-image of himself was in symbiosis with a villain image of the enemy. Counterposed to the picture of himself as a great revolutionary and Marxist [ ] was a picture of the enemy inside the party as a would-be betrayer of it and the Revolution (in Stalin and the Communist Party in the 1920s by Pereira, 4). This means Stalin didnt necessarily have anyone who openly opposed his views, but because he wanted to consolidate power, he needed to eliminate those who might take that power. Therefore he had to find something wrong with them, make them his opponents, and win against them in a battle of wills. So in this example, what Stalin was doing was politically positioning himself opposite those he felt threatened by. He had already exiled Trotsky and disposed of its other main proponents on the left in some fashion (whether it be disgrace, execution, or by some other means), so now he had no one to get rid of on the left. However, there were some challenging him on the right, so he switched over to the more radical side and ruined Bukharin, Rykov, and Tomsky. He had no care for those he damaged politically when he switched sides so abruptly; he only cared for the power he would gain from these new alliances and disengagement of old ones. But how did Stalin come to have such disregard for kindness? Many believe that this arose from the lack of kindness he was given. Stalin had a troubled childhood and background, being beaten, made fun of, and generally did not learn love. He grew up in a violent country, in a rough town, with a difficult family. This is evident in many accountsThe roots of violence ran deep in his family life and in Gori, where streetbrawling was the principal sport. Soso, as Stalin, born Josef Djugashvili, was called, suffered savage beatings from his alcoholic father and doting mother, who alternated smothering affection with harsh corporal punishment (Grimes, 1). This is basically saying that Stalin had a tough life as a kid, growing up where being cruel was almost a simple but enjoyable pastime. This probably made Stalin feel powerless, with such a strict, smothering mother, savage father, and gory Gori. Because Stalin felt powerless, he probably developed a great longing for power, and when he got it, didnt let go, adamantly refused to. Through this Stalin may have become corrupted and addicted to power. Most will attest that Stalin was extremely corrupt. He ruined the lives of thousands, millions even. How can the world avoid another Stalin? The first step would be to eliminate the variables that made him corrupt. Perhaps there should be more extensive social networks to intervene in family life and raise the quality of childrens lives. Maybe there should be new limits to alcohol consumption. And there should definitely be limits to a persons power. But how can society do these things without becoming a many-armed Stalin? How can the people intervene to prevent the variables that created Stalin without acting his part? Society must find a way to escape both totalitarianism and exorbitant capitalism without manifesting as the one percent of todays United States, or the failed Communist experiment corrupted by those like Stalin.