Milgram Experiment

America circa 2009 and the
Milgram Experiment


I hope all who begin to read this piece has the fortitude to become fully engaged in the subject presented because if one carefully considers what the frightful ramifications are, then perhaps you can have a greater understanding about what is going on today. First, you would be well advised to Goggle “Milgram Experiment” and find the time to read up on what the experiment was about and the fact that the experiment has been repeated many, many times by many, many different professionals and the results have always been the same regardless of where the experiment was performed or under what conditions. Indeed, researchers at California’s Santa Clara University just recently replicated the 1961 experiment in 2006 and the results were not only similar but the experiment was done under much more stringent and ethical conditions than the original Milgram experiment in order to address professional and ethical concerns about the experiment itself. Stanley Milgram began his work on this subject while working on his Phd at Harvard University with the experiment being conducted in 1961 by Milgram when he was Assistant Professor of Psychology at Yale University. The experiment was done during the Israeli court trial of the Nazi holocaust architect, Adolf Eichmann, and (the experiment) was an attempt to answer critical questions concerning following lawful orders even when those orders results in crimes against humanity. The trial once again raised very serious moral and ethical issues concerning the dichotomy of following a country’s lawful orders that result in pain, suffering and death to others, or not following orders because of ethical or moral concerns about inflicting pain and suffering to another human being. Not following a country’s lawful orders usually results in penalties to the one disobeying the orders or laws and that situation greatly complicates the issue. One should very carefully consider this question because it is a very, very complicated question and it is just as relevant today as it has been throughout the history of mankind. The question goes to the very heart of the ideology struggle that the one world government movement is waging today, and that is: Is one a citizen of the world (Humanity) or a citizen of your respective country, or even, are you a citizen of the world (Humanity) first and then of your respective country second? An important question because the World Court in the Hague can and does haul people in and tries them for crimes against humanity and other such crimes and the penalties are real to the one following lawful orders of one’s country. Bear in mind that the greatest moral and ethical country the world has ever seen, the USA, has rained death and destruction upon enemy and innocent alike during wars, and even dropped the atomic bomb upon ordinary people to end WWII. No one brought Harry S. Truman to a court of law because of crimes against humanity. The reason being, of course, we won the war! But if we had lost instead of winning the war, old “Give-em Hell Harry” would have swung from the gallows just like Eichmann did. Of course winning or losing should not determine moral or ethical righteousness, but for now they do and the One World Government folks will correct the winning/losing attribute by subjecting all peoples of the world to the same ethical and moral standards that One World Government will then adjudicate and thereby solve the dichotomy problem of who’s orders to follow. Well I guess this would at least resolve the latent penalties problem. The Milgram experiment was not designed to answer such complicated social questions as these even though the results of the experiment did illuminate the ethical and moral problems in greater detail, it was instead, designed to determine if ordinary people could follow orders even when real pain and suffering resulted to others in the course of following those orders. The experiment has answered that question without a doubt. Regardless of how many times the experiment is conducted, upwards to 80% of ordinary people willing follow orders and inflict pain and suffering even to the point of death upon fellow humans. This experiment goes a long way into understanding how ordinary Germans could inflict such horrendous pain and suffering upon other people. They were just following orders. The experiment proves that it is a deeply held human trait that can allow upwards of 80% of us to inflict pain and suffering upon others and we can do so because following orders somehow relives us of any universal, biological or cognitive moral/ethical imperative not to do so. Good God, many people in the experiment even enjoyed using the power associated with having life and death decisions over others of their kind. Some later experiments have even demonstrated mere peer pressure is almost as effective as lawful orders in mitigating moral or ethical concerns while harm is being done to others. All of this brings us to today. I’m sure you, as well as I, have been bewildered by the likes of Bernard Madoff, Banks, Financial Services Executives and other such scum bags that could knowingly inflict such pain and suffering upon their fellow man. They were either following orders to make profit because greed is now a virtue or excessive peer pressure relived them of concern for their fellow man. In short, they were only following orders, and they really can’t understand why people are so angry with them for doing so. Their problem is, orders aside, they have lost and will now suffer the consequence. Most of us ordinary law abiding (make that order following) citizens keep on following Governmental, Institutional, and Official Orders while acquiescing to Peer (Media) pressure that is at odds with our personal moral and ethical underpinnings even though we know in our hearts that relying on following orders to mitigate the moral/ethical responsibility of a free people will not leave to our progeny the same country that was left to us. This is the same old dichotomy that’s always been with us. When do we rise up as a free people and say we are no longer going to follow lawful orders (laws) but instead remove those who will not follow the same moral/ethical imperatives as the rest of us? As the Milgram experiment has demonstrated many times over, we will more than likely keep on following orders because doing so relieves us of any personal responsible for what happens, in short, we become enablers by following orders. All of this brings to mind the Son of God riding into Jerusalem upon an ass, carrying a palm leaf to signify peace and bringing a message of love to hapless humans who to this day, can’t decide if love should rule or just take the easy way and follow orders.