In “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram, he communicates his discoveries of a research experiment in which he performed attempting to provide evidence of the distances individuals determine to go through as a result of becoming obedient to authoritative figures. The experiment consists of three subjects to be tested; the experimenter, the teacher, and the learner. The experimenter gives an explanation of the research experiment being conducted and “the study is concerned with the effects of punishment on learning” (Milgram, 1974). The teachers would recite a sequence of words. The learner would be expected to recall the words connected to each other. However, the learner is also secured tightly to an electric chair during this experiment. If the learner could not accurately reply with the correct response the teacher would be compelled to be in charge of giving an electric shockwave which varies between from fifteen to four hundred fifty volts. Each individual is provided with “a sample 45-volt shock from the generator” prior to becoming a teacher (Milgram, 1974). This is to demonstrate the certainty that the machinery essentially functions its duties during the experiment. However, without the teacher knowing, the learner is in fact an actor who does not receive any electric shock during this experiment. The experiment determined that individuals in society are in an agreement to go to extreme actions that would characteristically be beyond humanity’s intentions solely because they redirected to do so. The main claim that Milgram makes is that the general public is set in motion to take any type of action in accordance with commands that are ethically wrong and inexcusable with the intention of satisfying an authoritative individual. He has the belief that to be obedient is an essential characteristic of civilization. His focus is proving his claim that obedience under an authority figure can overpower peoples’ morals. The outcome of the experiment determined that as long as the individual does not the impression of being held accountable on behalf of their own personal performances, then they will have a tendency to go as far as they could to harm another individual due to the commands of an authoritative figure. In his article, Milgram describes ‘obedience’ as “the basic element in the structure of social life as one can point to….and it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others” (p. 398). The number of analyses is expected to supply a cautious notice to the general public. We, as a society, be required to expose ourselves to possible vulnerabilities of obedience under authorization of a higher power. The type of appeal that the author is believed to use is an ethos appeal. Ethos is an appeal to authority in compelling somebody of the personality or integrity of the persuader. The author senses that his deviations will demonstrate to the society, how individuals would pay no attention to their own independence when following commands that deliberately clashes with their own ethics. Milgram states, “Morality does not disappear – it acquires a radically different focus: the subordinate person feels shame or pride depending on how adequately he has performed the actions called for by authority” (p.
…show more content…
His use of language gives a complete detail description demonstrating the procedures of each participant in the experiment of what is expected of them. Stanley Milgram portrays a research experiment by means of two individuals to test the boundaries of obedience which requires to be responsible for agony upon a person. In what way can an individual legitimize the brutality that was exposed in the research experiment merely because they were obeying commands made by authoritative figures? The experiment brings to light the lack of ownership of one 's actions an individual is willing to take when they feel they were simply following orders. Milgram makes a good point when he states that "the experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment – such as loss of income, community ostracism, or jail – for failure to obey" (p. 409-10). The concept of the experiments that took place validates that we as individuals need to acknowledge that just because someone, an authority figure, or the law, tells us we need to do something, have a mind of your own to analyze and think with, we should not conform simply because we feel it is what is expected of
His use of language gives a complete detail description demonstrating the procedures of each participant in the experiment of what is expected of them. Stanley Milgram portrays a research experiment by means of two individuals to test the boundaries of obedience which requires to be responsible for agony upon a person. In what way can an individual legitimize the brutality that was exposed in the research experiment merely because they were obeying commands made by authoritative figures? The experiment brings to light the lack of ownership of one 's actions an individual is willing to take when they feel they were simply following orders. Milgram makes a good point when he states that "the experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment – such as loss of income, community ostracism, or jail – for failure to obey" (p. 409-10). The concept of the experiments that took place validates that we as individuals need to acknowledge that just because someone, an authority figure, or the law, tells us we need to do something, have a mind of your own to analyze and think with, we should not conform simply because we feel it is what is expected of