Milgram, "just following orders", and compassion
In this posting, I intend to discuss how "just following orders" is not as lame an excuse as many seem to think it is, but how, nevertheless, we cannot accept it as a valid excuse, and attempt to look at how we should handle such cases.
For those not familiar with the famous Milgram experiment, you owe it to yourself to look into it. It demonstrated that most Americans were willing to follow orders beyond a point that basic human decency would seem to preclude. A surprising 65 percent of participants showed no limits to how far they would go while following orders, while only 2.5 percent (i.e., 1 out of the 40 participants) refused to administer a shock that was marked as being dangerous. If you think we've evolved much, check out this episode of "What would you do?"
So, given that most of us would follow orders beyond what we find decent, how can we be too harsh on those who are given such orders and then follow them? Well, for starters, accepting such an excuse makes it even less likely that people would question such orders in the future, whereas making examples of those who did not question such orders makes it more likely people will question such orders in the future. But, is that fair? I think not.
So, what should we do? Here's where I feel murky, so bear with me. For one thing, I think making as many people aware of the Milgram experiment as possible as a form of inoculation is a beginning. Of course, it has to be done in the right context so as not to be seen as excusing such behavior. Secondly, I think we can follow the German example somewhat where great collective shame is heaped onto our heads for allowing it.
What else can we do? How much should we worry about fairness if it prevents future atrocities?
Of course Milgram was relatively controlled conditions and "no limits" means the study didn't take it to the limit.
It's common in practical justice to make an example of a criminal. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that would depend on the circumstances. A genuine inquiry and fair trials should they be warranted (grand jury indictment equivalence) which result in convictions would dictate that some punishment be meted out. If Obama decides to pardon after conviction, the example is still set.
If trials result in "not guilty" verdicts, we're back to politics.
If no genuine indictments are forthcoming, we have to hope that investigation details show us why not.
May 14, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was controlled conditions, but the subjects didn't know that. As far as they knew, they actually killed the subject on the other end… and then they continued to apply shocks. In fact, the Milgram experiment would violate psychology's ethical standards of today for demonstrating just how much evil we are capable of. (That's my take on the "why", at least—it's really disconcerting to the individuals involved to realize what they would have done had the experiment not been controlled.) See also the Sheridan/King variation mentioned at the end of the Wikipedia article. I was unaware of this follow-up experiment until posting this.
May 14, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
"As far as they knew, they actually killed the subject on the other end"
Which speaks more to the 1) artificial conditions of the test, 2) people's intuitive understanding that it was a test, or 3) the limits of the test (not seeing the actual results in real time, only hearing the simulated vocals).
I think also that Milgram didn't have the "learner" strapped down helpless to a table. So people infer free will. If they are free to stop "teaching" so is the other person. A more direct test would have been to make it clear that a dominance relationship exists. I think many more normal people would stop at lower levels.
"many were highly disturbed and some openly wept" -wiki
Factors like that suggest that it's not just routine following orders. For instance, how many would come back again for round 2 a day later, for $4 (adjusted for CPI inflation)?
I don't mean to nitpick Milgram to death...
May 14, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had never considered that they might be thinking that the learner could just walk away. Of course, the Sheridan/King variation I mentioned above suggests that, at least for non-humans, they'll kill even when they know the subject can't walk away. Also, I'm skeptical that many of them would have thought that through. Consider me egotistical because I'm basing my skepticism on the fact that I hadn't considered it, even after being aware of the experiment for some time now, whereas they were just introduced to it.
I think you also make a valid point that this particular "following orders" was in the heat of the moment, and that possibly after having a chance to think about it, they would have refused to follow orders a day later. I think the weeping, however, has more to do with them realizing that they "failed a test" of their morality. Maybe I'm just a cynical SOB, though.
Please do. It's criticism I hadn't heard before, and it makes me think. I don't do that nearly often enough. :)
May 15, 2009 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
What Milgram suggests to me is that people will do things under specific circumstances which they might ordinarily not do. That's almost trivial.
But I think his other point was that professionals and would-be professional grossly underestimated how far from "normal" so many people would go, all quibbles about the experimental setup aside. There is a bias to think "nobody I know would do that" which bias seems to be almost delusionally wrong.
The elements of coercion are important because it's often hard to draw a line between being forced, feeling forced (but without actually being forced), and just going along with things. If you are afraid you'll get fired, you might "find" some slack in what you think are your principles, or you might recognize that principles are not Holy Writs. And so on...
May 15, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink