3 ms·

>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 th

>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.

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.