One of the most important debate subsequent to Milgram’s 1963 experiments on obedience under authority is, whether the tricked candidate has to be considered as entirely accountable for his actions or not.
Although it is surely disappointing to realize such a tendency to malevolence when being under strong intimidation, it is undoubtable that the participant should not put the blame on the experimenter.
First and foremost, from my point of view, denial is absolutely not the proper response to the experiment’s findings.
Reluctant participants ought indeed to understand that, in this situation, they have let the fear of authority surrender their own will and sense of compassion in front of a man suffering.
The best way to not being overwhelmed by a feeling of guilt and weakness is to face the issue and to learn from it.
One must take advantage of this conclusion to cease being a muppet emotionless as so as authority is exerting its power.
Each individual has neglect its natural inhibitory mechanisms and leads a better reflection on his actions, especially in these circumstances.
Consequently, denial, or shifting the responsibility is only a manner to hide oneself behind false excuses and not face reality, which is as dangerous for society as for the person itself.
However, even if the responsibility comes down to the participant, it is the experimenter’s duty to conduce the test correctly and in a qualified way.
Because the participants have to comprehend the results and the explanation of their action.
Hence, when it dawns on them that they could have taken a human life, the conductor has to guide them, out of their discomfort.
In aim to explain them to what extend they can learn from their actions.
Speaking about properly understanding of the experiment, the participant has firstly to admit his responsibility, but also to get the importance of the situational aspect of such a subservience.
In other words, Milgram noticed that authority is only a top-down process, fluctuating and losing impact according to many criteria.
As a consequence, it is utter nonsense to obey it without a critical thinking, whereas it is crucial for people to notice that the social norms, agreed and imposed not by a dreadful figure, but by each individual’s principles put together.
On this basis, the participant must assume his actions and rethink it when it is encroaching on his values and the society’s values.
October 2015
Szavazz most! 