%202021_edited_edited.jpg)
Adolf Hitler we know much about, but Adolf Eichmann was another, less known Nazi German who was pivotal in the mass extermination of Jews during the Holocaust. His role involved the identification, and eventually, the transportation of Jews from across Europe to their death in Poland. He was tried in Israel in 1961 and hanged for his crimes.
However, there is something kind of silly, but maybe not so silly, about the defence he gave during his trial. He argued that he really was a good guy, “the kind of man who cannot tell a lie”, and he went on to claim that while he did in fact do all the wicked things he was accused of, he was only following orders and did not really want to do such things. In fact, he was disgusted by much of what was done to the Jews.
Oh Eichmann.
This sorry excuse of a defence really intrigued a researcher from Yale University, by the name of Stanley Milgram, who decided to test the theory that the average person would be willing to commit murder if given strict instructions to do so by an authority figure.
He advertised in the newspaper for 40 men to participate in an academic ‘study of memory and learning’ at Yale University. Each participant was paid $4.50 for showing up to participate. This is how the experiment went:
Each participant was told they would be participating either as a ‘teacher’ or as a ‘learner’. In reality, the experiment was rigged to ensure that each participant was given the role of teacher. In each case, the participant was paired with a learner who they thought was another participant but was really an associate of Milgram. This associate or learner was seated in one room, supposedly on an electric chair, while the teacher, or test subject, was placed in a neighbouring room with an electric shock generator and supervised by another one of Milgram’s associates, dressed in a lab coat, posing as the experimenter. The learner and teacher could not see each other but could communicate.
RULES OF EXPERIMENT
The rules of the experiment were that the learner had to study a list of word pairs they were given. The teacher was to then identify a word from any pair and ask the learner to recall the matching word from a list of four choices. For the sake of the experiment, the learner got most of the answers wrong and each time an incorrect answer was given, the teacher was instructed by the experimenter to administer an electric shock.
The first shock was to be 15 volts and each time the learner got an answer wrong, the teacher was to increase the voltage of the next shock by 15 volts, until they got to the maximum voltage of 450 volts. Smaller voltage switches were labelled ‘slight shock’ while higher voltage switches were labelled ‘dangerous: severe shock’ and the final three switches simply had a forbidding ‘XXX’ marked above indicating fatality.
The learner, being a part of the research team, never actually received any shocks but would pretend as though he did. In some cases, the teacher would hear shrieks of pain or would hear the learner banging against the wall and begging for the experiment to be terminated. In the case of more lethal shocks, the teacher would simply hear the learner go quiet and would query whether he was still conscious.
Where the teacher hesitated or raised concerns about continuing the experiment, the experimenter would prod the teacher to continue using four standard prods such as “The experiment requires you to continue” or “You have no other choice; you must go on” and the experiment would end either when all four prods were used with the test subject refusing to administer the next shock or when the test subject had administered the maximum 450 volts.
The results of the experiment? Although most participants became visibly distressed by the reactions of the learner and attempted to challenge the researcher’s orders to continue the experiment, every single participant went up to a minimum of 300 volts, and 65 per cent of participants went up to the maximum voltage of 450.
DO ANYTHING YOU TELL THEM
This is one insightful experiment which highlights that if you put on a pretty white lab coat and look smart enough, you will be able to get some people to do anything you tell them to.
How many medical professionals have followed through with administering life-threatening medications because they were following orders? How many law enforcement agents have taken lives because they were following orders? How many employees have been victimised or wrongfully dismissed from the workplace because someone was following orders?
Authority must be respected but not blindly obeyed. Unfortunately, this study has shown us that all it takes for 65 per cent of us to sell out our consciences is a smart-looking authority figure issuing stern instructions. And sadly, for some of us, all it takes is a name-calling friend or associate.
The broader question is what is it that ultimately dictates what we do or don’t do? Is it the law or our company’s code of conduct? Is it our conscience? Is it the Bible, the Quran or other religious text or will it come down to our own sense of logic and reasoning? What will drive the decision when we are in the hot seat, perhaps with a gun pointing us in the face? Give this some thought.
Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com
COMMENTS
Dennis A Minott, PhD 2 days agoPending
Krysten Gyles' column compellingly examines the disturbing implications of obedience to authority, as illustrated by Adolf Eichmann's defense during his trial and Stanley Milgram's infamous experiment. The Milgram experiment, which demonstrated that even ordinary people would administer potentially lethal shocks to others when instructed by an authority figure, underscores the unsettling truth about human behavior.A similar experiment conducted at the University of Exeter in the UK further supports Gyles' thesis. Researchers explored how individuals would respond to unethical commands in a workplace setting. Participants were asked to deliver negative feedback to a colleague based on arbitrary criteria. Despite the discomfort it caused, many complied with the instructions, illustrating a troubling willingness to harm others under authority's influence. This aligns with Milgram's findings that situational pressures can override personal morals.Moreover, contemporary studies continue to reveal that individuals often prioritize conformity over ethical considerations in hierarchical structures such. This raises critical questions about accountability and moral responsibility in various sectors, from corporate environments, to political party settings, to religious orders and congregations, to law enforcement and military units. (Haiti, Haiti, Haiti, Israel, Israel, Israel, Hamas, Hamas, Hamas, Uganda, Sudan, My Lai, Australia, etc..).Ultimately, Gyles effectively highlights that while authority must be respected, it should never be followed blindly. As we reflect on these experiments, one must wonder: who among us might find themselves facing a St. Lucian or Jamaican hangman or prison someday soon for following orders or legal briefs without question?
Comments