In his article, “The Perils of Obedience,” author and psychologist Stanley Milgram argues that most people obey the authority even when they know that their moral judgement is sufficient enough to determine right from wrong. In ordinary life, a person's conscience conflicts with the need to obey authority. Most decisions in life are made to appease the authority figure that a person's wishes in life. In the ‘blind experiment,' the teacher and the learner were used to determine the level at which punishment affects learning (Milgram 4). In particular, the point at which a person stops inflicting pain on another person when commanded to continue is necessary for understanding the need to obey the authority.
In the experiment, Milgram begins with the assumption that any person is likely to inflict pain on another. Obedience to authority makes a person inflict pain. After the experiment, it is clear that majority of individuals are obedient to the authority despite the level of pain inflicted on others. I argue that while most people would obey authority, it is not true that a person can inflict pain on another because they have been commanded. Most people can only obey orders based on the degree at which they agree (reason) with orders and their relationship with the person giving orders.
Empathy is critical when inflicting pain on others. Individuals with high levels of empathy cannot inflict pain on others. In the experiment, the teacher while inflicting pain on the learner might have lacked empathy. The discomfort of a learner is likely to make a normal person avoid inflicting more pain on another person. Milgram writes that persons continue to adhere to authority “Out of a sense of obligation and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies” (741).
In the experiment, the conversation between the person feeling the pain and the person inflicting pain is not clear. Inflicting pain based on the circumstances such as high voltage charge does not qualify volunteerism. Milgram states that the subjects in the experiment volunteered. No person in the society has the power to volunteer in an experiment that causes pain to other persons. Milligram states that "The most frequent defence of the individual who has performed a heinous act under the command of authority is that he has simply done his duty" (743). No person in the society can legitimize the cruelty of the accident just because they are following orders.
Milgram also presents an argument that no person in the experiment was threatened with consequences when they fail to inflict pain on another. “The experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment for failure to obey” (744). Each person has a mind capable of making right decisions. Milgram’s experiment removes the power to use reason in any situation. Human beings have been viewed by Milgram, in the experiment, as persons who cannot engage in any reason without being told to act in certain ways. The ability to analyse and think does not make a person to inflict pain on another just because they have been commanded.
Milgram’s experiment looks modified to achieve certain results. Objectivity of assumptions and key findings are questionable. Empathy and the ability to use reason do not make a person vulnerable to authority figures. The notion that subjects volunteered for the experiment is ridiculous. No person volunteers so that they inflict pain on other persons.
Works Cited
Mailgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed.
Laurence, Behrens and Leonard, Rosen. 12the Ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013. 630-43. Print.
Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience.” Harper’s 247.1483 (1973): 62. Web.
Parker, Ian. “Obedience.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Ed. Laurence Behrens
and Leonard J. Rosen. 11th ed. Boston: Longman, 2011. 712-721. Print.
