In 1961, professor Stanley Milgram conducted the infamous Milgram Experiment, in which he measured the willingness of participants, or “teachers,” to shock a “tester” with increasingly high (and eventually lethal) voltages of electric current. Nearly forty-five years later, the experiment was replicated in the hopes that results would change….but out of the eighteen men and twenty-two women who tested, over 70% of participants administered the highest shock. The experiment reveals a disturbing truth: human beings tend to blindly follow the command of authority figures. But does this mean anybody would proceed to killing another human being at the beckoning of a scientist? Or could a follower of a certain ethical theory be immune to such a …show more content…
Where the egoist’s action was rather difficult to predict, utilitarianism, if employed correctly, allows for only one choice. I believe that the “purist” utilitarian teacher would have no problem continuing, completing…or even killing the tester for the benefit of mankind. “Utilitarians wish to maximize happiness not simply immediately but in the long run as well” (Shaw, 61). Simply put, the utilitarian would ask, “How does the Milgram Experiment advance society?” Although the tester has a natural right to life, and the teacher a moral right to a clean conscience, the utilitarian has no other choice but to continue testing. At the expense of the tester’s life and the teacher’s conscience, mankind’s long-term benefits from knowledge gained from the experiment outweighs immediate negative …show more content…
So, what happens when we shift to a nonconsequentialist perspective? Kant’s categorical imperative offers a new light when deciding how to continue the experiment. One of its reformulations, commonly known as the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” (Matthews 7:12), quickly helps to explain the action a follower of Kant’s ethics would follow. If the teacher considers what he or she would experience if in the seat of the learner, he or she would have no hesitation in protesting to the experimenter and leaving the room. “We should always act in such a way that we will the maxim of our action to become a universal law” (Shaw, 66). If a teacher were to complete the entire experiment, the maxim of his or her actions could be expressed as such: “I will disregard the health and safety of other human lives in the conquest for knowledge and furthering mankind.” While the maxim might be fitting in the eyes of a utilitarian, this maxim fails to become universal law. There is a contradiction—if all human beings injured and killed other human beings for the sake of furthering mankind, there would ultimately be no
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure. The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher is the real subject and the learner is merely an actor.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine).While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, in Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from
...if I believe this could ever happen in United States of America. First of all, if I was part of the Milgram Experiment I can say I would have done it if not for the fact that I would have been too suspicious that I was being set up by a criminal organization to kill somebody, but if I had agreed to take part in it I can say without a doubt that I would have done it because I was told to and would have no reason to question them. I personally feel a more accurate comparison would be from the 2009 movie The Box. This is the movie where you are offered a box with a button and if you press the button you get 1 million dollars and someone in the world dies. I feel this more accurately represents the position that the Nazi soldiers were in. In their case the 1 million dollars would be their lives and they would be choosing to kill the person or lose their million and die.
The Milgram experiment of the 1960s was designed to ascertain why so many Germans decided to support the Nazi cause. It sought to determine if people would be willing to contradict their conscience if they were commanded to do so by someone in authority. This was done with a psychologist commanding a teacher to administer an electric shock to a student each time a question was answered incorrectly. The results of the Milgram experiment help to explain why so many men in Nazi Germany were recruited to support the Nazi cause and serve as a warning against the use of “enhanced interrogation” techniques by the United States government.
Utilitarianism’s purpose, according to Mill, is to make what the individual subconsciously desires and make that desire a reality. If an individual doesn’t know what options he or she has, they don’t have the capacity to make the best decision. Mill emphasizes this by relating happiness to the visibility of an object. If an object isn’t visible, then to most, the object doesn’t exist, as is the same with happiness. Mill’s argument sheds light on the individual more so than the group in his interpretation of Utilitarianism. As I stated previously, Mill doesn’t quantify his interpretation of Utilitarianism. Instead, concepts such as morality, are based internally as opposed to externally. Everyone has the potential to decide for themselves whether their actions are moral or not. Through doing this, Mill addressed most of the criticisms toward Utilitarianism. However, Kant’s Categorical Imperative acts more as a decision rule for action instead of universal
In finding that people are not naturally aggressive. Milgram now alters the experiment to find out why do people act the way they do. He compiled the experiment to answer, why do people obey authority, even when the actions are against their own morals.
At first Milgram believed that the idea of obedience under Hitler during the Third Reich was appalling. He was not satisfied believing that all humans were like this. Instead, he sought to prove that the obedience was in the German gene pool, not the human one. To test this, Milgram staged an artificial laboratory "dungeon" in which ordinary citizens, whom he hired at $4.50 for the experiment, would come down and be required to deliver an electric shock of increasing intensity to another individual for failing to answer a preset list of questions. Meyer describes the object of the experiment "is to find the shock level at which you disobey the experimenter and refuse to pull the switch" (Meyer 241). Here, the author is paving the way into your mind by introducing the idea of reluctance and doubt within the reader. By this point in the essay, one is probably thinking to themselves, "Not me. I wouldn't pull the switch even once." In actuality, the results of the experiment contradict this forerunning belief.
In Milgram's opinion the teachers continued because they were told they were not responsible for whatever happens to the learner, he states “Experimenter: i'm responsible for anything that happens to him ( Milgram 81).” Milgram says, “Teachers were the ones inflicting pain but still did not feel responsible for their act ( Milgram 83).” Also Milgram says “ they often liked the feeling they get from pleasing the experimenter (Milgram 86).” However Baumrind believes that the teachers only followed orders because they trusted to experimenter. Baumrind states, “The subject has the right to expect that the Psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively ( Baumrind 94).” When Baumrind tells the readers this she means that she thinks the teachers believe that that the experimenter would not let anything bad happen to the
The Asch and Milgram’s experiment were not unethical in their methods of not informing the participant of the details surrounding the experiment and the unwarranted stress; their experiment portrayed the circumstances of real life situation surrounding the issues of obedience to authority and social influence. In life, we are not given the courtesy of knowledge when we are being manipulated or influenced to act or think a certain way, let us be honest here because if we did know people were watching and judging us most of us would do exactly as society sees moral, while that may sound good in ensuring that we always do the right thing that would not be true to the ways of our reality. Therefore, by not telling the participants the detail of the experiment and inflicting unwarranted stress Asch and Milgram’s were
He believes the scientific advancements from Milgram’s experiment outweigh the temporary emotional harm to the volunteers of Milgram’s experiment. Also Herrnstein points out that Milgram’s experiment was created to show how easily humans are deceived and manipulated even when they do not realize the pain they are causing. We live in a society and culture where disobedience is more popular than obedience; however, he believed the experiment was very important and more experiments should be done like it, to gain more useful information. The experiment simply would not have been successful if they subjects knew what was actually going to happen, Herrnstein claims. He believes the subject had to be manipulated for the experiment to be successful. “A small temporary loss of a few peoples privacy seems a bearable price for a large reduction in
Summary of the Experiment In Stanley Milgram’s ‘The Perils of Obedience’, Milgram conducted experiments with the objective of knowing “how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist" (Milgram 317). In the experiments, two participants would go into a warehouse where the experiments were being conducted and inside the warehouse, the subjects would be marked as either a teacher or a learner. A learner would be hooked up to a kind of electric chair and would be expected to do as he is being told by the teacher and do it right because whenever the learner said the wrong word, the intensity of the electric shocks increased. Similar procedure was undertaken on the teacher and the results of the experiments showed conclusively that a large number of people would go against their personal conscience in obedience to authority (Milgram 848).... ...
According to Mill’s, utilitarianism is a consequence-based theory. Whether an action is morally right or wrong depends entirely on its consequences. In fact by taking into account the right or the wrong consequences of our actions, we do not take into account only our own interest but the interest of everybody as whole. We must not forget that Mill defines utilitarian principle as the" greatest happiness principles" which holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (mill, 7). From this definition, it becomes pretty simple to apply the utilitarian principle as an every day rule. In fact, to judge of a morality of an action, you just have to evaluate the good and bad consequences of this action. According to me, it is important at this point to understand what mill defines as good and bad. For Mill, the good is ...
In this paper, I will define and explain Utilitarianism, then evaluate the proofs made to support it. In the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the theory that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Jeremy Bentham is acknowledged as the father of Utilitarianism, it was Mill who defended its structure through reason. He continually reasoned that because human beings are capable of achieving conscious thought, they are not simply satisfied by physical pleasures; humans desire to pleasure their minds as well. Once a person has achieved this high intellectual level, they do not want to descend to the lower level of intellect where they began. Mill explains that “pleasure, and