Perils of Obedience :: essays research papers

identical to our standard experiment, except that the teacher was told that he was cease to select any shock level of any on the trials. (The experimenter took pains to point egress that the teacher could use the highest levels on the generator, the lowest, any in between, or any combination of levels.) Each subject proceeded for thirty critical trials. The learners protests were co-ordinated to standard shock levels, his first gear grunt coming at 75 volts, his first tearing protest at 150 volts. The average shock used during the thirty critical trials was less than 60 volts -- lower than the point at which the victim showed the first signs of discomfort. Three of the forty subjects did non go beyond the very lowest level on the board, twenty-eight went no higher than 75 volts, and thirty-eight did not go beyond the first loud protest at 150 volts. Two subjects provided the exception, administering up to 325 and 450 volts, but the overall result was that the great majority of mint delivered very low, usually painless, shocks when the choice was explicitly up to them. The condition of the experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects behaviour -- that those who shocked the victim at the to the highest degree severe levels came only from the sadistic fringe of society. If one considers that almost two-thirds of the participants fall into the category of "obedient" subjects, and that they represented ordinary people drawn from working, managerial, and professional classes, the inclination becomes very shaky. Indeed, it is highly reminiscent of the issue that arose in connection with Hannah Arendts 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt contended that the prosecutions effort to depict Eichmann as a sadistic monster was fundamentally wrong, that he came closer to being an uninspired bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job. For asserting her views, Arendt became the object of considerable scorn, even calu mny. Somehow, it was felt that the monstrous deeds carried out by Eichmann required a brutal, twisted personality, evil incarnate. After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons submit to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that Arendts belief of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth than one might dare imagine. The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a gumption of obligation -- an impression of his duties as a subject -- and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies.