Skip to content
Analiza i Egzystencja
72 (2025)
OpenAlex

For the whole journal, according to OpenAlex.

Citations
237
Publications
481
H-index
6
I10-index
2
Mean citedness (2 years)
0.17
Citations received by year
Journal citation chart. Exact values are available in the table below. 2017: 4 2018: 13 2019: 12 2020: 17 2021: 27 2022: 31 2023: 31 2024: 33 2025: 36 2026: 19 2017 2026
Show data table
Citations received by year
YearPublicationsCitations
2017254
20182313
20192312
20202017
20212127
20222631
20232531
20242633
20252536
20262019

Data retrieved:

What do these numbers mean?

Publications and citations cover records linked to this journal in OpenAlex. H-index is the largest number h of publications with at least h citations each. I10-index counts publications cited at least 10 times. The chart shows citations received in each year; the current year is incomplete. Coverage may differ from WNUS and other services.

The 2-year mean is an OpenAlex metric. It is not the Clarivate Journal Impact Factor.

View in OpenAlex (new tab)
Google Scholar
Find in Google Scholar (new tab)

Milgram i Spaemann: etyczne ujęcie odpowiedzialności uczestników eksperymentu dotyczącego destrukcyjnego posłuszeństwa


(Milgram and Spaemann: An Ethical Approach to the Responsibility of the Participants in the Experiment on Destructive Obedience)
DOI: 10.18276/aie.2025.72-07
Cite

The full text is available

ISSN:1734-9923
eISSN:2300-7621
Authors: Marcin Jaranowski ORCID
Uniwersytet Mikołaja Kopernika
Keywords: responsibility ethics Milgram’s experiment obedience
Issue / book publication date:2025
Page range:24 (163-186)
OAI-PMH:Metadata
CC BY-SA Open Access DOAJ ERIH PLUS Scopus Diamond Discovery Hub
QR code

Abstract

The author of this article examines the issue of the responsibility of the participants in Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment on destructive obedience. He presents Milgram’s understanding of the subjects’ responsibility and then interprets the behavior of the obedient subjects from the perspective of the German philosopher Robert Spaemann’s theory of responsibility. This approach aims to consider the subjects’ actions from the standpoint of normative ethics. The text can be understood as a broad extension of Spaemann’s mention that his theory of responsibility can describe the disturbing attitude of the obedient subjects adopted during the experiment.

PDF

Download PDF
Preview PDF

Open PDF

Bibliography (34)
  1. Badhwar, N.K. (2009). The Milgram Experiments, Learned Helplessness, and Character Traits. The Journal of Ethics, 13 (2), 257–289.
  2. Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s ”Behavioral study of obedience”. American Psychologist, 19 (6), 421.
  3. Blass, T. (2002). The Man Who Shocked the World. Psychology Today, March/April, 69–74.
  4. Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today? American Psychologist, 64 (1).
  5. Doliński, D., Grzyb, T. (2017). Posłuszni do bólu. Sopot: Smak Słowa.
  6. Doris, J. (2002). Lack of Character. Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Gros, F. (2019). Nieposłuszeństwo. Tłum. E. Kaniowska. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Czarna Owca.
  8. Haidt, J. (2014). Prawy umysł. Dlaczego dobrych ludzi dzieli religia i polityka? Sopot: Smak Słowa.
  9. Harman, G. (2003). No Character or Personality. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (1), 87–94.
  10. Herrera, C.D. (2001). Ethics, Deception, and ‘Those Milgram Experiments’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18 (3), 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1468-5930.00192.
  11. Jaranowski, M. (2020). Katastrofa pod kontrolą. Status moralny ofiary i wykonawcy w eksperymencie Stanleya Milgrama dotyczącym posłuszeństwa w perspektywie etyki normatywnej. Avant, 11 (3), 1–22. https://avant.edu.pl/2020-03-01.
  12. Kaposi, D. (2017). The resistance experiments: Morality, authority and obedience in Stanley Milgram’s account. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 47 (4), 382–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12137.
  13. McKenna, M., Warmke, B. (2017). Does Situationism Threaten Free Will and Moral Responsibility? Journal of Moral Philosophy, 14, 698–733.
  14. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67 (4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525.
  15. Milgram, S. (1964a). Group Pressure and Action Against a Person. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 69, 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047759.
  16. Milgram, S. (1964b). Issues in the Study of Obedience: A Reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848–852. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044954.
  17. Milgram, S. (1965a). Liberating Effects of Group Pressure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1 (2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021650.
  18. Milgram, S. (1965b). Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority. Human Relations, 18 (1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800105.
  19. Milgram S. (2017a). Obedience to Authority. An Experimental View. New York: HarperCollins.
  20. Milgram, S. (2017b). Posłuszeństwo wobec autorytetu. Tłum. M. Hołda. Sopot: Smak Słowa.
  21. Miller, A.G. (2008). Co badania Milgrama nad posłuszeństwem mogą powiedzieć na temat Holokaustu? Kilka uogólnień z laboratorium psychologii społecznej. W: A.G. Miller (red.), Dobro i zło z perspektywy psychologii społecznej (s. 245–303). Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM.
  22. Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21 (6), 737–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354311420199.
  23. Niećko-Bukowska, B. (2018). Oblicza odpowiedzialności. Perspektywa aksjolingwistyczna. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
  24. Perlstadt, H. (2013). Milgram’s Obedience to Authority: Its Origins, Controversies, and Replications. Theoretical & Applied Ethics, 2, 53–77.
  25. Perry, G. (2012). Behind the Shock Machine: the Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. Melbourne: Scribe.
  26. Pigden, C.R., Gillet, G.R. (1996). Milgram, method, and morality, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 13 (3), 233–250.
  27. Russell, N., Gregory, R. (2021). Are Milgram’s Obedience Studies Internally Valid? Critique and Counter-Critique. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 9, 65–93. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2021.92005.
  28. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., i in. (2006). A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiment. PLoS ONE, 1 (1): e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.
  29. Spaemann, R. (2001). Osoby. O różnicy między czymś a kimś. Tłum. J. Merecki. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
  30. Spaemann, R. (2002). Grenzen. Zur ethischen Dimension des Handelns. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
  31. Spaemann, R. (2006). Granice. O etycznym wymiarze działania. Tłum. J. Merecki. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa.
  32. Szutta, N. (2012). Dyskusja z sytuacjonistyczną krytyką etyki cnót. Odpowiedź na zarzuty Gilberta Harmana. Diametros, 31, March, 88–112.
  33. Waller, B.N. (2011), Against Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  34. Winch, P. (1990). Etyka a działanie. Tłum. D. Łachowska, T. Szawiel. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.