My View Concerning the Experiment

Concerning the experiment, I believe the conclusion of Milgram's. William's critiquing, in my opinion, seems containing misjudgment in it. Milgram's statement was "Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process." William must have misunderstood some words in this sentence.

 

Firstly, the word "ordinary" is misunderstood or omitted. There were three people disobeyed the experimenter. Were they ordinary people or not? In order to make this clear, we must first define it. I think it means "Of no exceptional ability, degree, or quality; average." So, the three people should not be considered ordinary. They each had an exceptional quality that most people do not occupy. Since the three were not ordinary, the critiquing based on this is not reasonable.

 

Secondly, what does the word "simply" mean? It means "just, only". 'They "just or only" did their jobs'. What's the meaning of sentence? Shall we understand it this way: They just did jobs, did not imply any other substances into their jobs? Then, why should a person to think about the effect of his/her job when he/she is just doing their job? On this point, the three people were not doing a job simply, but actively. So the three people's deeds should not be used to criticize the conclusion. They

are completely two different things.

 

Thirdly, the word "particular" may be misunderstood. What' the meaning of "particular"? It means "Of, belonging to, or associated with a specific person, group, thing, or category; not general or universal". In short, it means "unusual". I think it means "on purpose" here. Milgram didn't mean that they (the ordinary people) did their work without the "hostility". Milgram meant that they had the "hostility" but not "on purpose". Every subject could see "DENGER" in the experiment. To say they do the work without "hostility" is, obviously false. But how could one say that the subjects work without "particular hostility" is false? On this point, William's critiquing seems not so correct.

 

Here comes my conclusion: when ordinary people simply doing their jobs, they really can become agents in a terrible destructive process, without any particular hostility on their part. We all participated, participating, or will participate in such kind of process.