Milgram Vs Diana Baumrind Analysis

Argument Synthesis
Option #1:
Stanley Milgram vs. Diana Baumrind

At very young ages, most of us are taught the importance of being obedient. Many of us may have even been rewarded for obedience and punished for disobedience. For most of us, being obedient creates a sense of accomplishment and pride, but what happens when we are put in a position where obeying a certain order results with violating ones own moral beliefs? In 1963, Stanley Milgram, a professor of psychology at Yale University, designed and conducted a series of very controversial experiments to test one’s limits of obedience (Milgram 358). Milgram wanted to measure participants’ willingness to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting
The Theory of Conformism states that “a subject who has neither ability nor expertise to make decisions, especially in a crisis, will leave decision making to the group and its hierarchy” (Miller 14), and the Agentic State Theory, wherein, per Milgram, “the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and he therefore no longer see himself as responsible for his actions” (Miller 16). The Theory of Conformism is seem throughout Milgram’s experiments any time the “teacher” questioned the experimenter’s orders but decided to obey anyways, and the Agentic State Theory is seen throughout the experiments anytime the “teacher” questioned who would be help responsible for the well-being of the “learner.” Once the experimenter explained that he would take the responsibility, the “teacher” agreed to continue on with the electric
However, the results from Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments lead me to believe that there definitely is a growing issue in human nature where obedience takes precedence over ethics and morals. Milgram’s experiments clearly showed some evidence that people were more willing to obey rather than disobey an authority figure even if that meant harming another individual. It’s understandable that people may have long-term effects upon realizing the things they were willing to do in order to be obedient, but in my eyes this would just be a chance to better yourself as a person. Who says the participants in this study didn’t learn about themselves as individuals and make the necessary changes within their selves to be able to base their future decisions on their morals and ethics rather than in order to be obedient? Overall, I think it’s time to look more closely at Milgram’s experiments and the information gathered from them so that we can better understand and possibly even reverse the natural tendency of human’s to obey authority when in situations that go against their morals and