Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Milgram Experiment & Authority

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram

http://psychology.about.com...

Discuss
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 9:31:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are certain realities about how "evil" people are willing to act when acting under orders. The experiment was redone, and with similar results:

http://www.apa.org...

It's deeply troubling, but in a lot of ways the results just tell us things that we already know:

Authority is morally benign, in the sense that it can be used for good or evil. The fact that it can be so easily abused, however, is a very compelling reason to ensure that all who are in charge of others are morally upright people.

Very few people have the self confidence to refuse clearly immoral orders. There are some that do, and we champion them as heroes and whistle blowers -at least sometimes. But the line between outright insubordination and morally justifiable refusal to comply is a fine line to draw, and is contingent upon both one's perspective and relationship to the authority whose orders were refused.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram

http://psychology.about.com...



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:08:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.

I think the issue is the level of "moral" outrage. If people can rationalize something, they often will. It would be interesting to see this experiment done on those one respects, and not on strangers.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:08:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.

I think the issue is the level of "moral" outrage. If people can rationalize something, they often will. It would be interesting to see this experiment done on those one respects, and not on strangers.

You mean to say that this is the reality of how people treat strangers?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:15:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:10:18 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:08:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.

I think the issue is the level of "moral" outrage. If people can rationalize something, they often will. It would be interesting to see this experiment done on those one respects, and not on strangers.

You mean to say that this is the reality of how people treat strangers?

I'll watch the video before I comment further, since I don't want to make too many assumptions.
But, yes, strangers are not really people, and given trusting a stranger or authority, I think it is only natural to trust the latter.
People do not shed a tear for the homeless man who died last night in San Diego, unless they had reason to know him.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:20:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:15:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

But, yes, strangers are not really people, and given trusting a stranger or authority, I think it is only natural to trust the latter.

Think of listening to parents, teachers, and those you believe to be "authorities" on a subject over the ramblings of some guy on the street.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:15:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:10:18 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:08:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.

I think the issue is the level of "moral" outrage. If people can rationalize something, they often will. It would be interesting to see this experiment done on those one respects, and not on strangers.

You mean to say that this is the reality of how people treat strangers?

I'll watch the video before I comment further, since I don't want to make too many assumptions.
But, yes, strangers are not really people, and given trusting a stranger or authority, I think it is only natural to trust the latter.
People do not shed a tear for the homeless man who died last night in San Diego, unless they had reason to know him.

So what you're saying is that authority is nothing to fear, because people are this heartless anyway? I think you must be one cold m*therfucker who never leaves his house then; I'm not quite sure else how to respond. If you think that the world and your life in it could possibly function if the only courtesy people ever showed each other was forced by the barrel of a gun or by cynical self-interest then you are truly deluded. Similarly, you must be of quite slavish disposition to desire to live under authority rather than among strangers who regard you as an equal human being (or perhaps you merely realise that you are unable to afford that courtesy to them).
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 12:36:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:23:59 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:15:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:10:18 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:08:44 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 11:43:07 AM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram



Discuss

It seems to me to be an example of why we cannot expect people to naturally rebel against authority, even when its commands are grossly immoral. Those who attempt to justify authority commonly claim that those in power will be deposed immediately if they act immorally or abuse those they are in power over, but here we can see that this is not the case at all.

I think the issue is the level of "moral" outrage. If people can rationalize something, they often will. It would be interesting to see this experiment done on those one respects, and not on strangers.

You mean to say that this is the reality of how people treat strangers?

I'll watch the video before I comment further, since I don't want to make too many assumptions.
But, yes, strangers are not really people, and given trusting a stranger or authority, I think it is only natural to trust the latter.
People do not shed a tear for the homeless man who died last night in San Diego, unless they had reason to know him.

So what you're saying is that authority is nothing to fear, because people are this heartless anyway? I think you must be one cold m*therfucker who never leaves his house then; I'm not quite sure else how to respond. If you think that the world and your life in it could possibly function if the only courtesy people ever showed each other was forced by the barrel of a gun or by cynical self-interest then you are truly deluded. Similarly, you must be of quite slavish disposition to desire to live under authority rather than among strangers who regard you as an equal human being (or perhaps you merely realise that you are unable to afford that courtesy to them).

So far, this video isn't turning out the way I thought, but I'm sure something will happen because right now, they are refusing to proceed.

Where do you get off on this wild tangent of me saying authority is better? It is human nature to trust authority, and most people trust themselves as being the highest authority.
I think you equate authority and control.
If I know nothing of X, and you work in X field, and as you are telling me about X, someone interjects and tells me you are wrong. I don't know this person, but I know you. Who am I going to believe? Do you fault me for believing at that moment you over him?

Further, why do you have this false dichotomy of ambivalence to a stranger and zero compassion?
My work here is, finally, done.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:00:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 12:36:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

We appear to be functioning on different conceptions of authority, probably because my conception of authority is quite highly moralised.

I haven't actually watched the video but I did read the extract from Wikipedia a while ago:

"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures."

This is hardly 'ambivalence', which I assume is what you thought was happening.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:00:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:36:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

We appear to be functioning on different conceptions of authority, probably because my conception of authority is quite highly moralised.
Probably.
I was envisioning a much different experiment, and given the OP's words of "subdue", I thought it was more of a set up of: you are hired to administer shock therapy at an asylum and the guy escapes, so people were tackling the man in order to cure him, since the doctors know what is best.

I do find it odd that no one has checked on the man. Perhaps a sign of guilt.

I haven't actually watched the video but I did read the extract from Wikipedia a while ago:

"In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment; some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. Throughout the experiment, subjects displayed varying degrees of tension and stress. Subjects were sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, digging their fingernails into their skin, and some were even having nervous laughing fits or seizures."

This is hardly 'ambivalence', which I assume is what you thought was happening.
Odd, because I am quite certain Milgrim said 50% in the video...

I'm almost done with the video, but I'll need to write a post, which requires much thought. (not the best communicator am I)
My work here is, finally, done.
ThoughtsandThoughts
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:23:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram

http://psychology.about.com...



Discuss


Yielding to authorities also has to a great deal to do with how much general credibility the authority has (or the type of authority the individual has. e.g. day care assistants vs. politicians). It's not just a lack of self-confidence in people. It's recognizing a pattern of "good" and believing that it will probably continue. And then if doesn't, well there must be a "good reason" for that.

For example, a father tells his five year old daughter to try a kind of candy, but she's reluctant. She eventually tries it. It's good. The father encourages her to try many other things, leading to good results. Finally, he encourages her to ride a bike without his help. It doesn't seem like a good idea, but she remembers that her dad's encouragement usually leads to good things. So she tries it, and go figure, she can ride her bike by herself! Every time something good happens, she concludes her dad is good.

Then her dad punches somebody. Is her dad bad? Well, she has all of these good experiences with her dad. That wouldn't add up. If he was bad, she would have had many bad experiences with him. According to Piaget, people have a need to equilibrate, to balance opposing concepts. Basically, to rationalize. So the daughter might think to herself, "The guy my dad punched is probably a bad person." Therefore her dad is still good. Furthermore, if her dad told her the guy he punched was bad, it would further justify her rationalization. I believe the authorities in the Milgram study approached hesitation by basically saying stuff like, "This study is really important." That's the sort of message that allows people to say, "Oh, his intentions are good, so this isn't bad." Sometimes, that's the reality. Good intentions can mean that it's okay to do what seems like a bad thing. It would be okay to give the family dog away if the family couldn't afford to feed it anymore. Even though the kids might think it's wrong.

It's not just authority itself that people don't want to rebel against. People do want to rebel against authority if there's no credibility or good intentions (or seemingly good intentions if propaganda is involved) to back it up. When slavery was popular, I think it's probably fair to say that that the majority of slaves wanted to rebel. However, it's how the authority's power would have been used that prevented many of them from rebelling. There were threats not only to individuals, but to family members. If someone believed that the authorities, slave owners in this instance, were good, there would have been no need to use these threats. There are cases of slaves who stayed with their slave owners when freed because their owners treated them well (some stayed because it was financially necessary - yes - but there were cases where they stayed simply because they wanted to.)

So the credibility of the authority probably has a lot to do with deciding whether or not to rebel. Which leads me back to the Milgram study. It appears that, in 2007, teachers were very well trusted. [1] I assume they were very well trusted when the Milgram experiment took place. So I think it'd be pretty interesting to see a study on authority that controls for different types of authorities.

[1] http://www.ipsos-mori.com...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:06:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:00:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:36:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

We appear to be functioning on different conceptions of authority, probably because my conception of authority is quite highly moralised.
Probably.
I was envisioning a much different experiment, and given the OP's words of "subdue", I thought it was more of a set up of: you are hired to administer shock therapy at an asylum and the guy escapes, so people were tackling the man in order to cure him, since the doctors know what is best.

He did, in fact, test a variable similar to that, which you'll see at the end of the video. People would refuse to put their hand on the plate that was necessary to receive the shock, and he would ask the teacher to force the learner's hand onto the plate.

Not surprisingly, the less degree of separation that was present, the more likely the teacher was to rebel, but there was still compliance in that scenario.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 1:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This doesn't go away with the abolition of government -- that's the real thing. What you need to remember is that we're not far-gone from god-kings, and then why did they work? Because that's what you're dealing with. We're all just eyes in eye sockets looking out upon the world. It's frightening and we conform. There's a terrible curse of solipsism upon the world, basically, and we're all playing its game.

And what if it were anarchy? all corporations? what difference? None. And so you have the so-called "intelligentsia" preaching, seriously, survival of the fittest. There's an absolute insanity to it, it's the same thing that puts monsters on cereal boxes, an oh it's okay, it's there for us . . . and that's what's worked, and so the child goes for it again. People will just watch the news for murder and rape, they'll read about serial killers as if they're just actors there for their amusement, and that's it. Let the corporations lay waste to third world countries. Let the gangs lay waste to their ghettos. We'll watch movies about that sh1t. And then if the world turns around and says to you, "it's your turn to dance," you're gonna dance, it's as simple as that.

"For the people, by the people," is the god we need. It's about time we made our own order, rather than allowing fear and wickedness to make it for us. And you know, I've come to have a certain respect for Christianity in that, manipulation that it is. And you'd nearly be happy with a benevolent dictator too. But it's not enough. And seriously, anarchy is the most nonsensical idea there is. The state is simply a larger manifestation of the corporation. It's more of the same, the same old game of, "do this or die." Derren Brown actually play some tricks with this, bypasses the whole "conditions" aspect of economic exchange, really pressing on the true drive behind our conforming. Look him up at the dog track. He brings it back to base, and at that base it's all squeamishness, frightened conformism, there's no individual interest besides wanting not to be squashed out. What difference? Seriously? What humanity needs is to realise it's not necessarily a monster, that there are no bastard war gods laughing at us. Our next evolution is dispensing with the game and actually becoming other people in each other's eyes.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:01:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:52:53 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:06:58 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 7/12/2014 1:00:51 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 7/12/2014 12:36:38 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

We appear to be functioning on different conceptions of authority, probably because my conception of authority is quite highly moralised.
Probably.
I was envisioning a much different experiment, and given the OP's words of "subdue", I thought it was more of a set up of: you are hired to administer shock therapy at an asylum and the guy escapes, so people were tackling the man in order to cure him, since the doctors know what is best.

He did, in fact, test a variable similar to that, which you'll see at the end of the video. People would refuse to put their hand on the plate that was necessary to receive the shock, and he would ask the teacher to force the learner's hand onto the plate.

Not surprisingly, the less degree of separation that was present, the more likely the teacher was to rebel, but there was still compliance in that scenario.

Yes, I saw that.
They said it at the end of the video.
It showed a lot of things, like proximity to learner; proximity to experimenter; and direct responsibility, all played a role.

However, I am not too sure what this says about authority in general.
My work here is, finally, done.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:03:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 1:59:51 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This doesn't go away with the abolition of government -- that's the real thing. What you need to remember is that we're not far-gone from god-kings, and then why did they work? Because that's what you're dealing with. We're all just eyes in eye sockets looking out upon the world. It's frightening and we conform. There's a terrible curse of solipsism upon the world, basically, and we're all playing its game.

And what if it were anarchy? all corporations? what difference? None. And so you have the so-called "intelligentsia" preaching, seriously, survival of the fittest. There's an absolute insanity to it, it's the same thing that puts monsters on cereal boxes, an oh it's okay, it's there for us . . . and that's what's worked, and so the child goes for it again. People will just watch the news for murder and rape, they'll read about serial killers as if they're just actors there for their amusement, and that's it. Let the corporations lay waste to third world countries. Let the gangs lay waste to their ghettos. We'll watch movies about that sh1t. And then if the world turns around and says to you, "it's your turn to dance," you're gonna dance, it's as simple as that.

"For the people, by the people," is the god we need. It's about time we made our own order, rather than allowing fear and wickedness to make it for us. And you know, I've come to have a certain respect for Christianity in that, manipulation that it is. And you'd nearly be happy with a benevolent dictator too. But it's not enough. And seriously, anarchy is the most nonsensical idea there is. The state is simply a larger manifestation of the corporation. It's more of the same, the same old game of, "do this or die." Derren Brown actually play some tricks with this, bypasses the whole "conditions" aspect of economic exchange, really pressing on the true drive behind our conforming. Look him up at the dog track. He brings it back to base, and at that base it's all squeamishness, frightened conformism, there's no individual interest besides wanting not to be squashed out. What difference? Seriously? What humanity needs is to realise it's not necessarily a monster, that there are no bastard war gods laughing at us. Our next evolution is dispensing with the game and actually becoming other people in each other's eyes.

I mean, think of Elliot Rodgers, for example. No mother. Walked down the red carpet by his father, who was taken by some other woman. Utterly lonely. He wasn't anything but a spectacle, didn't know anyone else for real, had no reason to. Wanted rivers of blood because that made it for him. And how like to the red carpet that too, no? This is life. And when you're talking politics, this is what must be conquered. Not just the current god-kings.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:12:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And so you find Ayn Rand too, crying at the Christian god for the fear she's had to endure at the hands of man (and Derren Brown actually pulls his tricks solely on women at the dog track too come to think of it (and it wasn't actually a dog track either on second thoughts; horse racing)). It's all frightened conformism, and Rand's conforming not to the state, but to man and his machinations. I mean sanction of the victim? Come on... She writes immorality as morality, but it's power first and foremost that she writes as morality. "This is the god I know," Ayn Rand writes.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:29:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have actually done some considerable reading into Ayn Rand and, I must say, I love the woman. She was nuts though and intellectually all she's good for is as an illustrator of how nuts tons of other people are.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:41:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Wow, someone who likes Ayn Rand while at the same time agreeing with not a word she said. He must be sophisticated. lol!
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:54:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 11:23:38 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
If in this study, an anonymous experimenter could command adults to subdue a 50 year old man, and force on him painful electric shots against his protests, one can only wonder what government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige, can command of its subjects. -Stanley Milgram

http://psychology.about.com...



Discuss

Very interesting video. I'm not sure what there is to discuss, except to be weary of power and authority. The idea of authority, particularly among humans is an exceptionally scary idea seeing that humans are prone to corruption and immorality. However, as a whole it may be a necessary evil, one that humans must risk in order to achieve a better world.
Nolite Timere
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:54:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I like her in the sense that I now understand her insanity and it makes me feel sad. Here dylan, I made this recently: http://i.imgur.com... It'd be a cool new avatar for you =)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 2:59:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 2:54:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I like her in the sense that I now understand her insanity and it makes me feel sad. Here dylan, I made this recently: http://i.imgur.com... It'd be a cool new avatar for you =)

Liar liar pants on fire.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:02:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 2:59:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/12/2014 2:54:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I like her in the sense that I now understand her insanity and it makes me feel sad. Here dylan, I made this recently: http://i.imgur.com... It'd be a cool new avatar for you =)

Liar liar pants on fire.

wtf i'm telin truth
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:04:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 9:31:17 AM, YYW wrote:
There are certain realities about how "evil" people are willing to act when acting under orders. The experiment was redone, and with similar results:

http://www.apa.org...

It's deeply troubling, but in a lot of ways the results just tell us things that we already know:

Authority is morally benign, in the sense that it can be used for good or evil. The fact that it can be so easily abused, however, is a very compelling reason to ensure that all who are in charge of others are morally upright people.

The problem is that despite being morally benign, it seems that authority in general can more easily have a tendency to become corrupt than to be good. If you give 90% of the power to 1% of the people, then you run a great risk that that power could be abused. Another problem, is that it seemingly can never be ensured that someone is morally upright. We can never know what one's true intentions are, or even where their ideology will take the future. In the age of communism and socialism in Europe, it started as a utopian ideology to bring all people into peace, prosperity, and equality. Yet in the name of these things great powers rose and with the power they were offered they brought terror and death.

So then, is authority a necessary evil? One humans must use in order to achieve a better world? It seems logical that realistically, the society rules with authority will make more progress than the society that lives under anarchy.

Very few people have the self confidence to refuse clearly immoral orders. There are some that do, and we champion them as heroes and whistle blowers -at least sometimes. But the line between outright insubordination and morally justifiable refusal to comply is a fine line to draw, and is contingent upon both one's perspective and relationship to the authority whose orders were refused.
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2014 3:05:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/12/2014 3:02:13 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 7/12/2014 2:59:57 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/12/2014 2:54:29 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
I like her in the sense that I now understand her insanity and it makes me feel sad. Here dylan, I made this recently: http://i.imgur.com... It'd be a cool new avatar for you =)

Liar liar pants on fire.

wtf i'm telin truth

Whatever you say, mr.fire pants.