Perils of Obedience and the Stanford Prison

¶ … Perils of Obedience" and the "Stanford Prison Experiment"

Both "The Perils of Obedience" and the "Stanford Prison Experiment" essentially demonstrate the potential for 'evil' in ordinary citizens when placed in situations where stark authority is pitted against the individual's own moral imperatives (Milgram) or when deindividuated potential perpetrators are given total power over powerless victims (Zimbardo). Though the experiments differed vastly in design and methodology, the point of both experiments was to observe how far an individual would go in inflicting increasing pain on a victim.

There were several common ethical issues thrown up by both experiments. As Zimbardo says, "The line between Good and Evil lies in the center of every human heart...not in some abstract moral, celestial space..." (Sonoma State University Web site) Similarly, Milgram observes, "Conservative philosophers argue that the very fabric of society is threatened by disobedience, while humanists stress the primacy of the individual conscience." (Vanguard University Web site) Therefore, the same issue of ethics as in 'the individual conscience' is at the heart of both experiments on human psychology.

The use of the individual's conscience and power to discriminate and act on one's judgement of right and wrong is demonstrated by both experiments in the context of the use or misuse of power and authority. In "The Perils of Obedience," Milgram notes, "Some were totally convinced about the wrongness of their actions but could not bring themselves to make an open break with authority."

In fact, Milgram highlights the singular case of Brandt, the one individual who refuses to proceed: "I think we are here on our own free will. I don't want to be responsible if anything happens to him." (Vanguard University Web site)

One of the major observations of the "Stanford Prison Experiment" was also in the area of moral behaviour in situations of authority: "...tough but fair guards who followed prison rules. Second, there were 'good guys' who did little favors for the prisoners and never punished them. And finally, about a third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary...prisoner humiliation." Besides the behaviour of one set of guards, the other powerful demonstration of allowing power to overrule the dictates of conscience was in the case of the prison consultant: "He literally became the most hated authoritarian official imaginable, so much so that when it was over, he felt sick at who he had become...." (Stanford University Web site)

Both experiments highlighted the importance of regulating authority and more important, the need to protect the fundamental human rights of all 'victims' even imprisoned ones. This point is brought across strongly by both studies with the marked absence of any independent, impartial authority, who may have been able to intervene to prevent the further administration of pain or dehumanization of the prisoners. Zimbardo observes, "Even the 'good guards' felt helpless to intervene...." (Stanford University Web site)

In a manner of speaking, Milgram illustrates this: "When two actors disobeyed the experimenter...thirty-six of forty subjects...refused as well." (Vanguard University Web site)

This observation assumes even higher significance in light of the other common finding of both studies of "...obedience is a deeply ingrained behaviour tendency, indeed a potent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy and moral conduct." (Vanguard University web site) Zimbardo shares a similar view: "it's as though we are allowing society to imprison us by accepting the roles assigned to us." (Stanford University Web site)

It is evident from the above discussion on the ethical issues raised by both experiments that they shared some commonality in their findings. As Milgram says, "The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding...." (Vanguard University web site) Zimbardo remarks: "How could intelligent, mentally healthy, 'ordinary' men become perpetrators of evil so quickly.... The guards had won total control of the prison, and they commanded the blind obedience of each prisoner." (Stanford University Web site)