Paul Grüninger Conscience

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

As each new member of a police department officially becomes a sworn member, friends, family and other members of the public gather as they speak an oath. The oath these officers take, promises their commitment to ensure the safety of the public they serve. This means more than protecting civilians from individuals who may stray from the law, but to also ensure the protection of basic human rights. Police and other public servants are given a great deal of trust and power, what they do with it is based on the ethics they choose to uphold. In this paper we will look at why it is important for these justice professionals to study ethics.

During the experiment, if the teacher said that they did not wish to continue, the experimenter encouraged them to go on. He said that it was vital that they proceed until the test was over. Baumrind brings up a good point by suggesting that Milgram’s comparison of SS men in Nazi Germany to the teacher is faulty. Although they both instructed their “teachers” on what to do and made it seem as though the victims deserved what they were getting, the SS men would not have perceived their authority figures as benign researchers in a lab. The SS men were led to believe that their victims were unimportant not even worthy of consideration. She alleges this by saying, “He did not need to feel guilt or conflict because within his frame of reference he was acting rightly” (Baumrind 228), which describes how the SS men felt while torturing their victims.

After reading the article titled, “The Challenge of Policing in a Democratic Society: A Personal Journey Toward Understanding” by Officer Charles H. Ramsey, I was able to relate with his view points and argument. In this article Ramsey, who was a sergeant for the Chicago Police Department discussed the core of ethics. His main example was the Holocaust in Europe during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Ramsey stated police officers worked together with the Nazi soldiers during this time and in return were not protecting their citizens. Similarly, when the police made no intervention to the killings and hangings of blacks in the south of the United States during the Civil War era.

Miles Hewstone, who earned his PhD in social psychology from the University of Oxford, would concur, stating, “This evidence tends to rule out… the possibility that participants were sadists” (Hewstone 267). Milgram links these ordinary people to the soldiers and Nazi officials who carried out the Holocaust. Although this argument has partial merit, Milgram’s ineffectiveness, is tied to his failure to address the differences between the two groups. Baumrind effectively addresses this gap in Milgram’s logic; she states that the German soldier or SS officer had, unlike the subjects in Milgram’s experiment, no reason to believe that their superiors or authority figures were “benignly disposed towards himself or their victims” (Baumrind 93). Not only was the relation between the authority and the subject different, but the relation between the subject and the “victim” was as well. In Milgram’s experiment, the learner was an equal to the subject, while in Nazi Germany, the victims were viewed by the soldiers as sub-human. Baumrind accurately suggests that these altered relationships removed any of the guilt felt by Milgram’s subjects from the conscience of the German soldiers. Thomas Blass, who was an American social psychologist, Holocaust survivor, and author of the first published biography of Milgram, would add to Baumrind’s stance, stating, “Milgram’s approach does not provide a

The foundation of today’s society is not in immense chaos or destruction, but rather in an organizational order because of the choice in obedience. As depicted in the movie, “A Few Good Men”, obedience is questioned due to soldiers choosing to obey or not when it presents the case of Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey being disciplined for committing a crime, even if they were only following orders. Eric Fromm, a social psychologist and psychoanalyst, furthers points in whether it is permissible to commit a crime under the pretext of obeying orders in his article, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”. Comparatively, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, addresses obedience overriding

Christopher R. Browning’s “Ordinary Men” chronicles the rise and fall of the Reserve Police Battalion 101. The battalion was one of several units that took part in the Final Solution to the Jewish Question while in Poland. The men of Reserve Police Battalion 101, and other units were comprised of ordinary men, from ordinary backgrounds living under the Third Reich. Browning’s premise for the book is very unique, instead of focusing on number of victims, it examines the mindset of how ordinary men, became cold-hearted killers under Nazi Germany during World War II. Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men” presents a very strong case that the men who made up the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were indeed ordinary men from ordinary background, and

In Christopher Browning’s book, Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland tells the story of Battalion 101, a group of 500 policemen in their 30’s and 40’s who were sent into Poland to participate in a ‘special action’ without being told exactly what they are doing. Overtime they realized their mission is to Kill Jews and racially purify Europe. Most of the killing during this period of mass murder took place in Poland. Battalion 101 together with other Order Police battalions contributed to the manpower needed to carry out this enormous task. Browning comments that these men all went through their developmental period before the Nazis came into power. These were men who had known political standards and moral norms other than those of the Nazis. Most men came from Hamburg; one of the least ‘nazified’ cities in Germany and the majority came from a social class that had been anti-Nazi in its political culture. In seems this would not seem to have been a very promising group from which to recruit mass murderers on behalf on the Nazi vision of a racial utopia free of Jews. However, their actions helps us understand not only what they did to make the Holocaust happen, but also how they were transformed psychologically from the ordinary men into active participants in the most horrific offence in human history. In doing so, it aims on the human capacity for extreme evil and leaves this subject matter with the shock of knowledge and the

Christopher Browning describes how the Reserve Police Battalion 101, like the rest of German society, was immersed in a flood of racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. Browning describes how the Order Police provided indoctrination both in basic training and as an ongoing practice within each unit. Many of the members were not prepared for the killing of Jews. The author examines the reasons some of the police members did not shoot. The physiological effect of isolation, rejection, and ostracism is examined in the context of being assigned to a foreign land with a hostile population. The contradictions imposed by the demands of conscience on the one hand and the norms of the battalion on the other are discussed. Ordinary Men

Is Milgram justified in detailing a possible connection between his experiment and the Holocaust shortly after it happened? Diana Baumrind inclines towards disagreeing with him; however, she is not immediately discernible on whether she agrees with him which detracts from her overall effectivity. Baumrind believes Milgram’s subjects were concerned about their victims thus breaking the parallel between his experiment and the genocide in the Holocaust (Baumrind 93). A recollection of chronological events of the Holocaust created by the University of South Florida effectually refutes Baumrind’s belief by stating the “death camps proved to be a less personal method for killing Jews” (Florida Center for Instructional Technology). If the Nazis were making the death camps less personal, then Milgram is justified in providing the Nazis as examples in his experiment report because if his subjects continued to obey when they were concerned with the victims, then why would they reverse their decision to obey if the victim was made less personal? Milgram could have been slightly more effective and fair by acknowledging the difference between his experiment and Nazi Germany in that in his experiment the subject had no interaction with the experimenter beforehand while the Nazi Party built obedience towards them for almost a decade before they started to systematically abuse the power of

The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the

Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”

In policing, officers are given the role to serve and protect citizens, and carry out justice. In addition, are expected by society to protect lives and property. When a police officer fails to comply with these general principles, he or she is considered deviant. Corruption and misconduct have been present in society since the beginning of policing. An infamous case in American policing history is the Michael Dowd case, where a former NYPD officer was convicted for engaging in numerous criminal activities. When analyzing the film The Seven Five, several aspects in the case can be applied to concepts found in the Introduction to Policing book, including, police culture, personality, minorities in policing, ethics, and patrol operations.

The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well-known experiments of the psy-sciences. (De Vos, J. (2009). Stanley Milgram was a psychologist from Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected people for his experiment by newspaper advertising. He looked for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.

In regards of “The Milgram Shock Experiment” it is the surrendering of responsibility. During the Second World War many soldiers were heard saying; Befehl ist Befehl which freely translates in English; orders are orders. And this can be found back in this experiment. This is not a German trait but should be observed anywhere where people become dehumanized by events that are often traumatic and seemingly beyond control. This comes even more clearly in the last subject (teacher) the gentleman with the white polo shirt. The subject who is weakly protesting however during a later moment after he voiced his concern passes on all