Daniyal Furqan

Why do ordinary people commit extraordinary harm when told to? This question lies at the heart of decades of psychological inquiry into obedience, authority, and moral responsibility, beginning in 1961 when Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most iconic experiments in the history of social psychology. The experiment started by deceiving the participants into believing that they were performing a study on learning and memory and its connection to punishment. The participants were instructed to give electric shocks of increasing intensity to a “learner” in another room whenever he provided a wrong answer. The shocks were fake, and the learner was acting, yet participants continued as the voltage rose, ignoring the cries of pain, prompted by standardized instructions to proceed.

Demonstrating the power of authority, 65% of the people administered the full 450-volt shock, obeying the calm voice in a lab coat telling them to continue harming a helpless person begging for help, which made Milgram conclude that people are ready to go against their own morals when they are following orders from authorities.

The unsettling thing is that people are not naturally cruel, but extremely obedient. The study was done after World War II and aimed to understand how Germans could have participated in atrocities like the Holocaust.

In Milgram’s experiment, 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock, obeying the experimenter’s calm authority despite the victim’s pleas. Milgram concluded that people often override personal morals when following orders from perceived legitimate authority.

While Milgram demonstrated the force of obedience, Philip Zimbardo showed how social roles themselves can distort morality. He set up a fake prison in the basement of the psychology department at Stanford University and randomly assigned twenty-four male students to take on the roles of either guards or prisoners. The plan was for the experiment to run for two weeks, but it ended up being shut down in just 6 days. The “guards” started turning increasingly sadistic, verbally abusing the “prisoners,” giving out arbitrary punishments, and enjoying the power they held. Prisoners broke down, but Zimbardo intervened only after an outsider flagged the ethical disaster.

What could be learnt from this is that when given a role, people internalize the power that comes with the role, and it becomes a part of their identities, and like Zimbardo, those people who are in charge rarely notice the damage being done until it’s too late.

One needs to realize that the troubling implications of these experiments are not limited to the lab and appear in real life. During the October 2024 protests in Lahore, police used batons, chased students, and fired tear gas, hospitalizing 28. The incident showed how quickly people, like the officers involved, can follow orders without moral reflection, performing the role of disciplinarian without empathy simply because it came from an authority in uniform. In incidents like these, one sees how situational factors can completely override a person’s conscience, doing things they wouldn’t have done if they had just stopped, given what they were doing a thought, and relied on their judgment.

Obedience isn’t always a bad thing and is an important part of social life; other than that, institutions rely on discipline and structure. However, the type of obedience Milgram and Zimbardo found can be quite threatening.

People often blur the lines between respect and submission. They not only comply with what they are told, but also completely let go of their own judgment while doing so. As we can see, the results of these experiments have major societal implications as this type of obedience can only foster a society that is hollow, anxious and fearful.

From a psychological standpoint, this gives rise to what we call an “external locus of control”. This is when someone is convinced that they are not actually in control of their life, which makes the individual lose initiative, as they do not know what to do and must wait to be informed. They fear standing out or standing up for themselves.

So, the question is: What should be done?  

Firstly, one may start by understanding that disobedience is not always disrespect or rebellion, but on certain occasions, it is responsibility, and one must hold him/herself accountable. As a matter of fact, Erich Fromm, a psychologist, maintained that a healthy society needs individuals capable of disobeying when necessary. Otherwise, morality enters compliance. Secondly, people must be trained to ask questions, in particular, children. Not only scholastic, but ethical questions. Not only what is the rule, but why is this the rule, and who does it serve? Thirdly, one must have institutions that promote and not penalize dissent. The classroom that allows students to challenge teachers healthily is better than silence, a classroom where everyone remains quiet. A political party that allows internal and external criticism is better than one that silences its members. It is more stable to have a state where people can express themselves freely as opposed to a state where blind obedience is required. Lastly, one should also keep in mind that obedience is not loyalty; it is a habit, and habits can be broken.

Milgram and Zimbardo demonstrated that power and roles affect human beings deeply. We are not entirely reasonable or ethical as we consider ourselves to be. Such psychological patterns are not merely academic, but present in our daily lives all around us. Awareness is the necessary initial intervention. Understanding why rules exist allows people to decide when to follow them and when to resist. The only power that can be respected is that which is in service of people, not the power that silences dissent. Judgment, conscience, and the guts to say no when it counts are real strength.