Milgram and the Banality of Evil :
Controversies of the Conformity Experiment The subject of this essay concerns the Conformity Experiment, also known as the Obedience to Authority Experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961. He started studying this phenomenon in order to understand the behaviour of individuals subject to authority, after Adolf Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the Holocaust, declared during the trial held in Jerusalem, that he was just carrying out Hitler's orders.
For what reason do humans, in specific circumstances, delegate their own autonomy to authority? Are people able to execute orders, that are conflicting with their own morality and virtue, when those orders are given by an authoritarian figure? How …show more content…
Many criticisms have been made about Milgram and his methodology, which is a sign of weakness of his study. However, because, of the controversiality of the experiment, the same aspects, that are considered to be weak, are hold by Milgram to be strong points.
Various researchers argued that the experiment had no ecological validity, which means, that the way the experiment was designed was not representative of reality. Firstly, Baumrind (1964) argues that the validity of the experiment is questionable, since all the subjects were deceived, given that they were not told the real purpose of the experiment, but Milgram (1974) responded that it was essential, that the subjects were unaware of the actual purpose of the experiment, in order to obtain results representative of reality. However, Orne & Holland (1968) argued, that the results of the experiment were biased, since the subjects, because of the environment created, did not believe they were actually shocking a person, but they were only obeying the experimenter in order to fulfil the experimenter's anticipations. Milgram replied, that the majority of the subjects thought they were actually administering electric shocks to the learner, therefore believing what they were told by the experimenter. But the study had been replicated several times, producing similar results, and this claims, …show more content…
She argued that Adolf Eichmann was not the incarnation of pure evil, but a bureaucrat not capable of thinking and developing his own ideas. He was only doing his job while sitting behind a desk. Through this experiment, Milgram showed how Arendt's “banality of evil” is definitely more common than we might think. In fact, most of the people administered the electric shocks only because they felt obliged to do so, and not because they were willing to harm the learner. It showed that even ordinary people can abet of a destruction process, without showing any kind of aggression, and that, even if they realize, that they are harming another person, the subjects were inhibited by the authority figure, which hindered rebellion and provoked
Controversies of the Conformity Experiment The subject of this essay concerns the Conformity Experiment, also known as the Obedience to Authority Experiment, conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961. He started studying this phenomenon in order to understand the behaviour of individuals subject to authority, after Adolf Eichmann, one of the major organizers of the Holocaust, declared during the trial held in Jerusalem, that he was just carrying out Hitler's orders.
For what reason do humans, in specific circumstances, delegate their own autonomy to authority? Are people able to execute orders, that are conflicting with their own morality and virtue, when those orders are given by an authoritarian figure? How …show more content…
Many criticisms have been made about Milgram and his methodology, which is a sign of weakness of his study. However, because, of the controversiality of the experiment, the same aspects, that are considered to be weak, are hold by Milgram to be strong points.
Various researchers argued that the experiment had no ecological validity, which means, that the way the experiment was designed was not representative of reality. Firstly, Baumrind (1964) argues that the validity of the experiment is questionable, since all the subjects were deceived, given that they were not told the real purpose of the experiment, but Milgram (1974) responded that it was essential, that the subjects were unaware of the actual purpose of the experiment, in order to obtain results representative of reality. However, Orne & Holland (1968) argued, that the results of the experiment were biased, since the subjects, because of the environment created, did not believe they were actually shocking a person, but they were only obeying the experimenter in order to fulfil the experimenter's anticipations. Milgram replied, that the majority of the subjects thought they were actually administering electric shocks to the learner, therefore believing what they were told by the experimenter. But the study had been replicated several times, producing similar results, and this claims, …show more content…
She argued that Adolf Eichmann was not the incarnation of pure evil, but a bureaucrat not capable of thinking and developing his own ideas. He was only doing his job while sitting behind a desk. Through this experiment, Milgram showed how Arendt's “banality of evil” is definitely more common than we might think. In fact, most of the people administered the electric shocks only because they felt obliged to do so, and not because they were willing to harm the learner. It showed that even ordinary people can abet of a destruction process, without showing any kind of aggression, and that, even if they realize, that they are harming another person, the subjects were inhibited by the authority figure, which hindered rebellion and provoked