This month's post is written by my friend and long-time mutual, Winton Bates, who publishes on Aristotelian philosophy and economics at Freedom and Flourishing. I also had the pleasure of editing Winton's excellent 2021 book, Freedom, Progress, and Human Flourishing about how to negotiate life in the 21st Century in such a way as to maximize self-directed opportunities.
In this post, Winton focuses on the infamous 1963 Milgram experiment, which tested how far individuals would go in obeying an authority figure, even when it involved inflicting pain on another person:
I can remember feeling shocked when I first heard about the Milgram experiment. Some psychology students told me about the experiment about 60 years ago, while I was at university.
At that time, the findings of the experiment caused me to question my view of human nature. I was brought up to hold the view that it is natural for humans to be kind and humane. That view is consistent with the derivation of the words, “kind” and “humane”. It is also the view I hold now. The findings of the Milgram experiment seemed to suggest, however, that a less positive view of human nature might be more accurate.
In this post, Winton focuses on the infamous 1963 Milgram experiment, which tested how far individuals would go in obeying an authority figure, even when it involved inflicting pain on another person:
I can remember feeling shocked when I first heard about the Milgram experiment. Some psychology students told me about the experiment about 60 years ago, while I was at university.
At that time, the findings of the experiment caused me to question my view of human nature. I was brought up to hold the view that it is natural for humans to be kind and humane. That view is consistent with the derivation of the words, “kind” and “humane”. It is also the view I hold now. The findings of the Milgram experiment seemed to suggest, however, that a less positive view of human nature might be more accurate.
