Comparing Stanley Milgram's The Perils Of Obedience And Ian Parker

Every human has a unique and complex thought processing system in which it is nearly impossible to determine how each person will react in a given situation. At an early age, people are taught to be obedient and oftentimes are forced to make a decision between being obedient or following their own morals. Usually, obedience wins because of the emphasis society has placed on it. Most of human’s actions are a result of a previous action in which they felt necessary to do. Both authors, Stanley Milgram of “The Perils of Obedience” and Ian Parker of “Obedience” agree that, humans, as a whole, will not respond the same in every similar situation because their actions are usually a result of obedience or of their current situation, rather than their personality. In Milgram’s article, he explains an experiment he designed to test whether the subjects of the experiment would refuse the orders of authority and follow
In some instances people end up sacrificing things they wouldn’t have, if it would of been known from the beginning. On the other hand they could be malicious, where they otherwise wouldn’t have been under different circumstances. This shows the world, how under special circumstances, we can take these regular people and have them show a certain level of conformity that is only expected to be seen from a select few (608).
Parker ends the article by talking about how humans tend to make assumptions about others before analyzing the situation. One part of the world could perceive someone has being a hero but on the contrary they could be seen as a terrorist. Humans are judged off of their previous actions which society uses to determine how someone will act in every situation before evaluating them in other circumstances (608). People need to realize that not everyone’s actions are because of who they are but many are