CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This experiment (the Milgram Experiment) was originally set up to show that those involved in Nazi attrocities were somehow different to Americans, and that Americans would never follow orders in the same was that Nazis claimed they had. As you can see, the experiment actually showed overwhelmingly that people of all walks of life will follow orders.
In the original experiment, 65% of those tested reached the maximum voltage of 450 volts.
Milgram had two theories which explained why people were so willing to follow orders. The first was called the theory of conformism, which states that those who don't feel as if they have the expertise to make a decision in a crisis will often leave it up to the group (the majority) or the authoritical hierarchy to come up with the decision. In this case, The authority in charge was the experimentor, urging the person to continue. The second is called the agentic state theory, wherein, as quoted by Milgram, "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow."
What I don't understand is why no one said, "Why don't you throw the switch? What's there from preventing you? What are you doing that is so important you need me to throw the switch for you?"
That is messed up, that is really scary to think that just because someone was telling them to 9 out of 12 people would murder someone for ' science '.
When you consider the large number of individuals on the planet, it is easy to see that there are enough gullible people out there to carry out these horendous acts. That's why we need to get rid of them. I hope that when the time comes you are able to carry out the following missions:
Save Earth from Ludicrous Fools (SELF).
Save the Planet from the Legions of Losers (SPELL).
Save Earth from Truly Unintelligent People (SETUP).
It's nothing to do with stupidity. It's simply human psychology. The majority of people, intelligent and less so, will follow the orders given. The Milgram Experiment found that this was due to theory of conformism and agentic state theory. Essentially, people will leave it up to others in a position of authority or the decision of a group as a whole to make decisions, and will also be able to detract themselves from the current situation and feel as if they are simply instruments of the person in authority in not actually choosing to perform the acts.
Out of the 9 that went through with the "experiment," you can even see that a few of them had nice and lovable personalities. They weren't bad people, so to speak, but it does show how easily they one can make such horrible decisions under pressure. It just took them one newly introduced thought to make them continue on with this experiment--can you imagine what a person could do with thousands and thousands of thoughts being stored in their mind, and maybe even with their religion "at stake."
First and foremost, were those faces the hand lady was making really necessary? Or had she had a stroke or something?
It's nice to know at least some people had the character to say no to the experiment after a certain point.
I would say though that there are a couple differences in the comparison between this and nazi deathcamps.
1. there was no doctor or scientist telling them that no permanent damage was being done,
2. there was a sense of self-preservation, as the penalty for not following an order in war time was often death.
But I think this could be compared very accurately to waterboarding,
as the U.S. doesn't (at least not that we know of, who really knows that this point) execute soldiers for not torturing when told to, and there was a doctor present (according to the newest talking points at least, a trained medical personell) telling them there would be "no permanent damage."
So it seems like almost the exact same thing, right down to using the physical pain for information (which according to every study and the experts simply does not work.)
I don't know though. I don't feel that a person's lack of character, or intelligence, or the fact that most people will defer to the authority of another, excuses them. I feel they are still nearly as guilty as the ones making the rules.
Actually, if you pay close attention to what the doctor is saying, at no point does he say "he is fine don't worry". All he is telling them is "please continue with the experiment", "please carry on" and "it is essential that you continue". So it's very clear that the man may not be OK but that doesn't matter cause the experiment must go on.
Regardless of what the doctor says however, they can hear the man himself demanding the experiment to stop, yet they don't... and that makes it so so f@cked up...
Also, not all Nazis were threatened with death to follow orders. In the early days most of them believed in the cause...
Well it depends on the cause. For a scientific experiment it would not be worth it to cause pain on somebody. But if it was to protect people from terrorists it would be worth it.
I think the underlying message here, is that war and authority is bad. When that is not always true.
I would have refused to continued the experiment, because well, it's just an experiment.
Is there a legitimate cause that would make you or anyone offer up a lethal dose of electricity to another human being? Adolph Hitler may have believed the same thing! That Jews as well as others were inflicting damage to the mother country and therefore had to be rid of these "types" of people.
It was an experiment, yes, but did you not notice the overwhelming amount of people who said yes to even an experiment backed by professors and others in lab coats? The underlying message was not that war and authority are bad! The underlying message is that even under mediated circumstances people can, under the 'force' of suggestion go on and destroy a life in 8 or 9 out of 12 cases where little pressure prevailed.
OK listen, you have completely missed the point of the experiment.
The man in the other room was not a terrorist, not a criminal, he was just a guy participating in an experiment. And yet the person pushing the buttons saw nothing wrong with frying him up with 450 volts.
What this shows is that ordinary non-bloodthirsty people can be made to kill someone they know nothing about... someone that is completely innocent and has done nothing wrong.
Then you came in and said "yeah, that's not OK if it's done in the name of science, but if it was done in the name of unti-terrorism then it would be OK". What you are showing there is a complete disregard of the word INNOCENT. Whether you kill someone for science or for a cause such as the eradication of terrorism, you have still killed AN INNOCENT PERSON.
That Jake, is a tragedy... Because you will have killed a person for something they have not done. I'd like to know what your God would think of that...
Your mind went directly to terrorists, but I urge you to think of the true implications of what this experiment shows: 75% of your fellow human beings would have it for nothing to fry you up with 450 Volts. And in order to make them do that, we wouldn't even need to tell them that you are a terrorist or a criminal, as a matter of fact, they wouldn't need to know NOTHING ABOUT YOU, and yet just like that, they would pass a current of 450 Volts through your body...
"What this shows is that ordinary non-bloodthirsty people can be made to kill someone they know nothing about... someone that is completely innocent and has done nothing wrong.
Then you came in and said "yeah, that's not OK if it's done in the name of science, but if it was done in the name of unti-terrorism then it would be OK". What you are showing there is a complete disregard of the word INNOCENT. Whether you kill someone for science or for a cause such as the eradication of terrorism, you have still killed AN INNOCENT PERSON. "
You are right. I kind of missed that. Of course I don't think innocent people should be hurt or killed to fight terrorism.
But if it's a war, innocent soldiers will die. That's what I meant when I said those things.
You can't really compare this study to war because it's really not the same. That is kind of the point I was trying to make.
The only reason civilian casualties are though of as "ok" in war, is because it's socially acceptable. In reality, it makes no difference if an innocent person is killed in or out of war. They are still dead.
In fact, I think this experiment is very relevant to how we perceive war. The government tells people to kill, and it's okay because they are being told by an authority figure to do it. Suddenly the taboo of murder goes away, because your government allows it. Meanwhile, people like you sit thousands of miles away, and talk about how a certain amount of innocent deaths is acceptable.
Violence will continue throughout the world, if we don't begin to empathize more with other humans, and realize that abstract causes are not a reason to kill for.
Are you against all war? Because if not you must just be agreeing with authority and want Innocent civilians dead. Right? .......... . . . ... ... ... ... .. . . .....
I am against war, in the sense that no nation should attack another. If every nation held to this, then obviously no nation could ever start a war. This is not always the case however, and when another country does attack, it is the right of a country to defend itself. However, this defense should attempt to minimalize civilian casualites where possible. In other words, no preemptive strikes (read: the Bush Doctrine sucks).
If you hadn't already thought of it, there is still a problem with this system. What if a leader is attacking a group that cannot defend themselves. Genocide, for example obviously should be stopped, but whose duty is it to stop it? One of the supposed reasons that we went into Iraq, was because of what Saddam had done to the Kurds, and according to the administration at the time, he had the weapons to do it again (obviously this turned out not to be the case). But why should America concern itself with Iraq? This is why we need international organizations such as the U.N. to find, and stop human rights violations. So far the U.N. has been fairly useless in this regard (see Darfur) however, the idea is still a good one.
If no nation attacks any other nation, and we have an international organization that ensures people's rights are being upheld then there will be significantly less wars, and deaths. Will any of this happen soon? Probably not, however it should be our goal to strive towards this.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
I'm not suggesting anything of the kind Jake. I'm saying that even though the perpetrator of such acts knows nothing about the person they may annihilate, they will still perform the acts. It's not about the victims, it's about the people who would say yes to such mindless and heartless deaths.
People aren't born evil. I could take two identical twins, raise one in Texas, the other in Iraq and the two will be blood enemies.
Think about it. This experiment showed that under the unprovoked influence of a mere idea, 75% of the population could be brought to kill somebody.
Now imagine you've been taught Islam from birth with the added provisions that America is a tyrant devil and that Christians and Jews pose a threat to eternal salvation. Then the tyrant devil blows the shit out of your village and your family and the rest of your fellow villagers find out about it. It's no wonder they shout "DEATH TO AMERICA". They're as pissed and charged as our own 9/11 victims.
People can be easily inflamed to murder. And when they're misinformed, they become nazis, terrorists, martyrs, jihadists, hezbollah, north korean militants, bolsheviks, kamikazes, etc.
" I could take two identical twins, raise one in Texas, the other in Iraq and the two will be blood enemies."
I see what your saying nature and nurture, but I'm not enemies with Iraqis. Just terrorists.
"Think about it. This experiment showed that under the unprovoked influence of a mere idea, 75% of the population could be brought to kill somebody."
Thats true. In that situation. But flipping a switch and shooting somebody. Are two different things.
"Now imagine you've been taught Islam from birth with the added provisions that America is a tyrant devil and that Christians and Jews pose a threat to eternal salvation. Then the tyrant devil blows the shit out of your village and your family and the rest of your fellow villagers find out about it. It's no wonder they shout "DEATH TO AMERICA". They're as pissed and charged as our own 9/11 victims."
Thats true, it is dangerous that people are being taught those things. But are you suggesting I'm as brainwashed as the people that attacked our country?
"People can be easily inflamed to murder. And when they're misinformed, they become nazis, terrorists, martyrs, jihadists, hezbollah, north korean militants, bolsheviks, kamikazes, etc."
Very True. But do you think I'm a misinformed Nazi?
No, babies don't bomb people, they are the same people as YOU AND I from birth. Not homogenous throughout their lifespan.
I believe the manipulability of people by their environment combined with dangerous teachings will make a dangerous person, and because of this, terrorists aren't intrinsically different people who should be treated as such by killing them instead of long-term negotiations and reasoning.
Humanity is capable of both good and evil; all it takes is one person, one cruel, neglectful, or otherwise "bad" ringleader to force a group into compliance. Everyone wants to be a part of the herd, and that's not going away. We need to make sure that those in power aren't going to condone terrible acts, and that those who are cruel are quickly removed from power.
