Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 2
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Vranas, Peter B. M. 2005. The Indeterminacy Paradox: Character Evaluations and Human Psychology. Nous, Vol. 39, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Meeus, Wim H. J. and Raaijmakers, Quinten A. W. 1995. Obedience in Modern Society: The Utrecht Studies. Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 51, Issue. 3, p. 155.


    ×

Deception, Obedience and Authority

  • Peter Ingram (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100063543
  • Published online: 01 January 2009
Abstract

In his article, ‘Milgram's Shocking Experiments’, in Philosophy 52 (1977), Professor Steven C. Patten rejects Milgram's evidence for a Hobbesian view of human nature on three grounds: that the claim that a large number of the subjects in the experiments were not deceived is not convincing, that there is a conceptual conflation by Milgram of two senses of obedience, and that a proper understanding of kinds of authority will explain in an acceptable way the behaviour of most of the small number of subjects who might remain to support Milgram's conclusions. Patten's arguments in support of all three grounds are unsatisfactory.

Copyright
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Philosophy
  • ISSN: 0031-8191
  • EISSN: 1469-817X
  • URL: /core/journals/philosophy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×