Also, at 4:00 today, as per usual, I'll post my notes that provide "elements" of a good answer to the question of the day.
As it happens, today's question/prompt asked students to explain the Milgram Experiment (1961-3) and its validity & relevance. (I'm assuming that you are familiar with it. It tested whether ordinary Americans were willing to obey clearly harmful/wrongful orders from authoritative figures. Answer: yes. For a review of the basics of the experiment, go here.)
I've already written my "elements of a good answer" post to appear at 4:00. I thought some of you might be interested in the issues that arise there.
I've already written my "elements of a good answer" post to appear at 4:00. I thought some of you might be interested in the issues that arise there.
I wrote, in part:
 |
| "The authority is total" |
For instance, without the support of Republican and Democratic leadership and most ordinary Americans, the War in Iraq would never have launched in 2003. That war, which (unsurprisingly) killed many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, was sold to the American people based on very dubious grounds—that the Iraqis were responsible for 9-11 [plainly false], that the Iraqis were actively developing WMDs [poorly supported; ultimately determined to be false] that have turned out to be lies and distortions and exaggerations. But most Americans readily went along with that dubious project—and put dissenters under great pressure to go along. (For a good local example: see this.)
Consider, too, the My Lai Massacre, in which dozens of ordinary soldiers followed the plainly wrongful orders of officers—such as Lt. Calley—to machine-gun innocent civilians, including children. It is plain that such events occur often in war and that the American military is by no means an exception.... [All of this was discussed in lecture.]
There have long been objections to Milgram’s experimental methods and protocols. For instance, his subjects were all men. Do his findings, then, apply to women as well? Further, virtually all versions of the Milgram experiment have been done in industrialized societies, not rural societies. Do Milgram's findings apply to the citizens of rural or tribal societies? [I go on to describe the largely positive history of replication of Milgram's results, even recently.]
. . .
"Who's gonna take responsibility...?" —I'm responsible. Continue.
Obviously, such moral failings as the Iraq war (ordinary—and non-ordinary—people “going along” with dubiously-justified or immoral projects) occur all the time, and all around us.Right now, in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic, despite a mountain of evidence and expert testimony indicating that, for the sake of the public's health, people need to maintain “social distancing” and, if possible, stay at home, there is a movement to resist such advice (including an oddly ambivalent or inconsistent President). To the extent that those people succeed, they are causing unnecessary future deaths, since they are allowing the Covid-19 pandemic to spread instead of helping to halt or thwart its spread.
Years from now, people will ask: how can it be that so many individuals participated in this reckless and irresponsible movement and behavior? (Those who refuse to stay at home; those who refuse to wear masks; those who press for early “reopening” of the economy, despite clear indications that [such action] will make the contagion worse, et al.)
Many who are part of this movement now will then say: it wasn’t my fault; I was just doing what the President and others urged us to do!
But it's clearly wrong. Its plainly reckless. Now.
“Hey, don’t look at me. Look at the president (and various others).”
Nope. You are responsible for what you do. Others can’t take responsibility for what you do, unless these others coerce you; but you aren’t being coerced. [If you are part of this movement,] you're focusing on plainly dubious reporting, accepting plainly dubious information (about conspiracies, secret agendas, etc.). —Like members of a "flat earth" society.
[What do you think? Too much advocacy? Not enough? I reject the false equivalency of supposing that there is "another side" to the "issue" (of whether the pandemic is a fraud, whether it is being exploited to control American citizens, — or the milder "Democrats resist opening things up because blah blah blah," etc.)—just as I reject the notion that there is "another side" to the "issue" of whether Earth is round or whether the Holocaust occurred. —I am, after all, a "critical thinking" instructor.]
PLANDEMIC - THE MOVIE
"The authority is total."
