Abstract
A phenomenological analysis of the plight of the Milgram subject is conducted. It is concluded that the subject who continues to give shocks should not be seen as deciding to inflict serious harm on another, but as torn between two incompatable perspects on the meaning of continuation, one of which is enforced by the readings of the meanings of the actions of the experimenter. Next, drawing on the laws governing principal‐agent relationships, a taxonomy of situations in which an authority directs the actions of a subordinate is suggested. Importantly, in different cells of the taxonomy, legal codes assign sharply different degrees of responsibility to the agent and the principal for harms that result from their joint projects; in the Milgram situation the entire responsibility for harms done rests on the experimenter. Finally, an experiment that demonstrates “constructive obedience” is presented.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
