The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.
The Stanford prison experiment (or SPE) was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted at Stanford University from August 14 to August 20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo.[1] It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research[2] and was of interest to both the US Navy and Marine Corps as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture. Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent, permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.
The role of authority in shaping morality is a complex and ongoing debate in the fields of philosophy and psychology. Some argue that morality is largely derived from authority figures such as parents, religious leaders, and government officials. Others argue that morality is a result of a combination of factors, including cultural norms, personal experiences, and rational decision-making.
Yes, authority can be used to justify immoral actions. This is often seen in situations where individuals blindly follow the orders of a leader or authority figure without questioning the morality of their actions. It is important to critically evaluate the source and reasoning behind authority figures' directives to ensure that they align with ethical principles.
Authority can influence our moral decision making in a variety of ways. First, it can shape our understanding of what is considered right and wrong through teachings and rules. Second, it can create a sense of obligation or pressure to conform to certain moral standards. Lastly, it can also provide consequences for deviating from these standards, further reinforcing their influence on our decision making.
No, morality is not solely derived from authority. While authority figures can play a significant role in shaping moral beliefs and behaviors, there are other factors at play such as personal experiences, cultural norms, and individual reasoning. Additionally, individuals have the capacity to critically evaluate and question authority, leading to the formation of their own moral code.
Individuals can develop their own moral compass through a combination of factors, including personal experiences, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse perspectives. While authority can play a role in shaping morality, individuals have the capacity to question and evaluate its influence, ultimately forming their own moral beliefs and values.