3 ms·

> >1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk >It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1 There is ample eviden

by JackCh 8y ago

> >1. The actual reality: this is an ethical experiment and no one is at any risk >It's unlikely that the "teacher" subject believed #1 There is ample evidence that many of the teachers believed the experiment to be a sham and understood that nobody was actually being harmed. Some of them noticed inconsistencies in the experimental procedure, such as the learner not being paid, flaws in the narrative such as the learner with supposed heart problems being far too willing to be subjected to shocks for beer money, or general incredulity at the entire circumstance including unwillingness to believe Yale would permit such obviously unethical experimentation. >is strongly suggests that people are willing to ignore real suffering, if someone in authority denies the suffering It only shows that if the learner is persuaded it's being done in the name of a cause the learner already believes in. >and that is seen throughout politics, religion, and business... People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays. Adolf Eichmann claimed he was just dispassionately following orders, but do you really believe that? You shouldn't. The traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments would have you believe just following orders is normal human psychology, but actually the experiments did not show that.

romwell 8y ago
>People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better? Replace (science + man in a lab coat) with (religion + man in a robe) or (political ideology + man wearing the right insignia) or ("we are saving the world" BS + manager in a $80 T-shirt), and you'll get the same results as long as the cause is believable. If you are the one being hit with a stick for nothing, does it really matter to you that the one who did it truly believed that it was for some higher cause - without pausing to think how perhaps this is not the best way to get there?
- JackCh 8y ago
  > "Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better?" A Nazi who is a true believer is emphatically not better than a German who was merely following orders. I think most would say he's actually worse. However an observer who recognizes the of role belief is better than an observer who discounts belief and views the situation only as Milgramian obedience to authority. The former observer is better than the later because he has a more accurate understanding of the nature of the problem, and is therefore better equipped to deal with it. I'll also say this: I personally believe dedication to a cause is amoral. If it's the right cause, dedication to it is generally moral. If it's the wrong cause, dedication to it is immoral. It's not dedication that made true believer Nazis evil, but rather the cause to which they had dedication. Many of the men who died fighting the Nazis were similarly dedicated to their causes. Furthermore, specifically relating to the Milgram experiments, people who are dedicated to a good cause can be mislead into behaving in an immoral way. If we didn't recognize that, we might be left to conclude that apathy is virtuous.

by JackCh 8y ago

romwell 8y ago

>People who view all of these things through the lens of traditional narrative of the Milgram experiments are doubtlessly discounting the role true belief in the cause plays Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better? Replace (science + man in a lab coat) with (religion + man in a robe) or (political ideology + man wearing the right insignia) or ("we are saving the world" BS + manager in a $80 T-shirt), and you'll get the same results as long as the cause is believable. If you are the one being hit with a stick for nothing, does it really matter to you that the one who did it truly believed that it was for some higher cause - without pausing to think how perhaps this is not the best way to get there?

JackCh 8y ago
> "Do they? I agree with your view on the takeaway from the Milgram experiments - that conviction in cause is the necessary factor in addition to the nudging from the authorities. Does it makes it any better?" A Nazi who is a true believer is emphatically not better than a German who was merely following orders. I think most would say he's actually worse. However an observer who recognizes the of role belief is better than an observer who discounts belief and views the situation only as Milgramian obedience to authority. The former observer is better than the later because he has a more accurate understanding of the nature of the problem, and is therefore better equipped to deal with it. I'll also say this: I personally believe dedication to a cause is amoral. If it's the right cause, dedication to it is generally moral. If it's the wrong cause, dedication to it is immoral. It's not dedication that made true believer Nazis evil, but rather the cause to which they had dedication. Many of the men who died fighting the Nazis were similarly dedicated to their causes. Furthermore, specifically relating to the Milgram experiments, people who are dedicated to a good cause can be mislead into behaving in an immoral way. If we didn't recognize that, we might be left to conclude that apathy is virtuous.