Would you kill at the orders of a game show host?

[Edric O]

A French TV station has done an updated version of the Milgram experiment - but with a "game show" taking the place of the "science experiment."

Here's a link to an article about this.

If you're not familiar with this sort of experiment, the purpose is to see how easy it is to get people to follow orders - even extreme and evil orders, like killing someone with electroshocks. The findings are always sadly the same: it's very, very easy to get people to follow any orders given by just about anyone that looks like an authority figure. Even when the orders are given without any promise of reward or threat of punishment, people still follow them. Usually over 60% of people are willing to go all the way and murder someone just because they've been told to do so.

In this particular case, people were made to believe that they were participating in a reality TV show. Part of the show involved pressing a button to deliver electroshocks to "contestants" who were answering questions wrongly. The "contestants" were actually actors and there were no shocks... but the people pressing the button thought it was all real. And 82% of them were willing to go all the way and deliver lethal shocks. Because the game show host told them to do it.

The additional scary thing in this version of the experiment is that there was also an audience, who thought the whole thing was real... and they were always demanding more shocks. More blood, as it were. The spirit that made the Roman gladiator games so popular is clearly alive and well.

[Kiyouta]

Does this have any parallels with hypnotism? With perhaps the hypnotist taking the role of the experimenter. Most people would except the hypnotist to be responsible for anything which went wrong so would carry out orders regardless.

[Dunenewt]

Hmm, I read about this on the BBC.  It seems there are no end to the lengths people will go for their 15 minutes of fame and a bit of money.

[MrFlibble]

In this particular case, people were made to believe that they were participating in a reality TV show. Part of the show involved pressing a button to deliver electroshocks to "contestants" who were answering questions wrongly. The "contestants" were actually actors and there were no shocks... but the people pressing the button thought it was all real. And 82% of them were willing to go all the way and deliver lethal shocks. Because the game show host told them to do it.

Perhaps people felt their actions were justified by being part of a planned event? Basically, they could always say their actions were not their own responsibility because someone else told them to do it.

It seems highly implausible to me that the results would be the same if the people subjected to electric shocks were acquaintances or relatives of the experiment's participants. Or that people would inflict harm upon themselves simply because they were told so by the game show host (unless a high reward was promised I think).

The additional scary thing in this version of the experiment is that there was also an audience, who thought the whole thing was real... and they were always demanding more shocks. More blood, as it were. The spirit that made the Roman gladiator games so popular is clearly alive and well.

Does it really, really surprise you?

[Dunenewt]

Perhaps people felt their actions were justified by being part of a planned event? Basically, they could always say their actions were not their own responsibility because someone else told them to do it.

To elaborate on this, perhaps they felt that whatever they did would be safe within the confines of the studio, as they would have thought the studio would have put some failsafes in to prevent anyone actually dying, or coming to too much harm.  So as MrFlibble said, they would have felt less responsibility.

[MrFlibble]

To elaborate on this, perhaps they felt that whatever they did would be safe within the confines of the studio, as they would have thought the studio would have put some failsafes in to prevent anyone actually dying, or coming to too much harm.

Actually I don't think they felt less responsibility because they were sure no one would be harmed :P The original experiment showed right the opposite. Besides, there are less harmful real-life precedents in our history.

[athanasios]

Yet another example of where lack of Christian principles can lead people to.

I anticipate the evolutionary explanation of SandChigger.

[Mahdi]

Actually I don't think they felt less responsibility because they were sure no one would be harmed :P The original experiment showed right the opposite. Besides, there are less harmful real-life precedents in our history.

Agreed.  I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to really believe they were really electrocuting someone in a western game show.

[Edric O]

I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough to really believe they were really electrocuting someone in a western game show.

I disagree. Any sentence beginning with "I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough..." is always wrong.

Perhaps people felt their actions were justified by being part of a planned event? Basically, they could always say their actions were not their own responsibility because someone else told them to do it.

Yes, that's exactly the point. The experiment is meant to show how easy it is to manipulate people and make them do whatever you want without feeling responsible.

[SandChigger]

Yet another example of where lack of Christian principles can lead people to.

I anticipate the evolutionary explanation of SandChigger.

And I eagerly await your bussing of my backside. :)

This is just another example of what can happen when people turn off their own minds and blindly follow the orders an authority figure, be it game show host, parent, party leader, preacher, Pope, Jew-on-Wood, or Big Sky Friend With Benefits.

And no, no SURPRISE! at all here that we haven't really changed all that much from two thousand years ago. Isn't that one of the things FH was trying to tell us in <i>Dune</i>? Even after 21,000 years we're pretty much going to be the same as we are now.

[MrFlibble]

Yet another example of where lack of Christian principles can lead people to.

Following your logic, people who profess religions other that Christianity (or no religion at all for that matter) must be all bloodthirsty monsters.

[Dunenewt]

I think even Nema would kill if Stephen Fry was the game show host asking.

[athanasios]

Following your logic, people who profess religions other that Christianity (or no religion at all for that matter) must be [all] bloodthirsty monsters.

Brackets added.

Possibly. But I believe that sprinkles of those principles exist in other religions/atheists too. Not everything is black and white. ;)

[Khan]

So basically what you're saying is that morality (religiously based or otherwise) stops people doing bad things? Insightful. And wrong.

[Kiyouta]

I think even Nema would kill if Stephen Fry was the game show host asking.

Alan Davies certainly would! ;D

So basically what you're saying is that morality (religiously based or otherwise) stops people doing bad things? Insightful. And wrong.

Indeed! People will kill for the sake of morality.

[Edric O]

Indeed! People will kill for the sake of morality.

That's not necessarily bad. Sometimes it can be very good.

[Wolf]

That's not necessarily bad. Sometimes it can be very good.

Is that what Mr. Ulyanov said? A shame we only have a subjective and relativistic means of assessing contravening moral interests...

[Edric O]

Is that what Mr. Ulyanov said? A shame we only have a subjective and relativistic means of assessing contravening moral interests...

You mean Crd. Ulyanov. :P But no, he never said that - though I'm sure he would have agreed.

Now, as for the issue of "subjective and relativistic means of assessing contravening moral interests", the fact is that every law in the world is written as if it had the sanction of an absolute moral code. Every society functions according to some moral rules, which are imposed by force on those members of society who disagree with them.

[Wolf]

I'm afraid that's factually incorrect, despite your use of the very word "fact." Only criminal statutes and penal codes are written specific considerations of morality. Even then, however, they often reflect economic and policy interests just as much as they might reflect a moral sanction of one variety or another. Common law doctrines, though originating in medieval times from prevailing cultural norms, customs, and moral standards, have also evolved in the modern era with a strong yen for economic and policy considerations. There are those who go so far as to suggest that all of the foundational fields of torts, contracts, and property law lack any moral consideration whatsoever. The law-and-econ people have made great gains in the 20th century. Today, at least, the law strives to eschew subjectivity regardless of the interests the legislature was moved by to create law. Morality, like any other interest, is weighed against the others that happen to appear given the particular case at bar, and in many cases, does not appear at all. In any case, where morality appears, I believe it appears insufficiently to justify use of such rigid, narrow language like "every law in the world is written as if it had the sanction of an absolute moral code." It doesn't.

[Dante]

I always followed the line that went "a crime is just something that a group of people in power decide to prohibit."

Also, check your messages please Wolf. I'm not sure if there's a "you have mail!" function in the new setup and... have the patience of a mayfly right now.

[Edric O]

Wolf, it seems my definition of morality is much wider than yours. To me, any normative statement is a moral statement. A "moral code" is anything that includes notions of good vs. bad, as well as anything that includes notions of acceptable vs. unacceptable behavior. The purpose of the law, in most cases, is to define which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. Every time it does that, it's making a moral statement.

Even the statement "we should do whatever provides us the greatest economic benefit" is a moral statement. You may agree or disagree with the particular moral code that it is based on, but it is based on a moral code.

Edit: I'm not saying that your moral code determines your economic interests. In fact, it's the other way around. All I'm saying is that it's very hard to avoid having a moral code and acting as if it were objective.

[Wolf]

My definition of morality has nothing to do with the factual reality regarding the law. You may be right philosophically--but there is, of course, room for disagreement both about the nature and efficacy of morality-grounded codes--but you were speaking of the law. "[E]very law in the world" is not written with moral objectives in mind, although many are. I felt the strong need to disabuse you of this notion; philosophers such as yourself would do better if they realized that reality does not often conform itself to their perceptions of it. Especially when your original phrasing of the notion contained the word "absolute," a word which appears most infrequently in legal discussions, and then most often as something which does not or should not occur.

EDIT: Here, maybe an example would help explain. At the moment, the majority of "laws" that exist in the United States exist in the form of administrative regulations--SEC, DHS, etc. Are these items that "necessarily," as you suppose, contain moral imperatives? Even implicitly? In the realm of environmental regulations, carbon emissions are regulated not because they are "bad" morally but because they are "bad" in a utilitarian sense and then only at a certain volume. The law tolerates carbon emissions, which would seem to cut against the notion that emitting carbon is "bad" morally, or inherently. But environmental issues these days are becoming more emotional, so let me pick another example: short-trading. Does the SEC regulate it (it really doesn't, not anymore) because we have a moral imperative that argues against uptick trading of securities? (Much as old religious texts had moral imperatives against usury.) Or, rather, does the SEC regulate it (these days the better word would be "unregulate") because in certain amounts it gets in the way of more productive uses of money? I would tend to think the latter, and I find it difficult to find any substantial "moral" flavor to that regulatory scheme, much less an overriding one, and much, much less an "absolute" one as you so termed it. How about the common law custom of walking with your back to oncoming traffic? This strikes me as having nothing to do with morality and having everything to do with common-sense regarding the dangers of walking alongside traffic that moves at certain speeds (>20 mph). Not everything is murder; indeed, these days, most law has very little to do with "morality," and increasingly this is becoming true even in the realm of criminal law.

EDIT 2: And it just struck me, you know, in the old days, we used to have laws that we explicitly termed as laws intended to govern "the public morals." Sodomy laws, indecent exposure, pornography, those sorts of things. If all laws were written, absolutely, with morality at heart or so-written as to necessitate an inference of unspoken moral aims (you are so cynical of the legislature), why would lawmakers feel the need to specify that some laws were meant to regulate the public morals? Would not the simpler, more reasonable inference be to suppose that perhaps some laws have something to do with how the people would like public morals to be and other laws have to do with things that are recognizably "good", but that nonetheless lack any basis in morality? Indeed, today it may be a poor thing to take out a loan with greater than 5% interest, but tomorrow that may change. Congress, certainly, possesses the power to regulate this sort of commerce, but would you say that such regulation is "moral?" What about tomorrow when society recognizes that the exact opposite is true?