> "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 fr

> "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.