In the chapter Obscura, Milgram’s experiment of compelling participants to shock other people with what they believed to be potentially deadly amounts of electricity was, and is, viewed as controversial. The controversies were based upon moral, methodological and transferable-relevancy arguments. There were claims that Milgram himself was immoral, and that his experiments illustrated him as such. There were other claims that the environment and circumstances set by the experiment were so linear that they could not possibly represent the complexities we all face in daily life. Whatever the flaws of the experiment or experimenter may be, I think there are moral lessons that this controversy helps reinforce.
It would seem as if interpretation is key to benefiting from the results. If we interpret these findings as entirely irrelevant, we will not benefit in any way. Yet if we interpret it as absolute truth, we would do more harm than good through actions based upon invalid information. That being said, while we may not have enough information to identify the individual conditions for causation, if these conditions do so happen to be met in a real world situation, and a person just so happens to demonstrates the same
…show more content…
An actual participant in Milgram’s experiment, who spoke to Slater, claimed that his choice of continuing until the “death” of the other person compelled him to critically inspect his morality and perception of right and wrong, causing him to adhere to a stricter moral philosophy (59). The reasons behind these philosophical explorations may be completely unidentifiable, or ambiguous at best. This shows that while Milgram may have carried out his experiment unethically, that is unchangeable and we should make the best of what happened and the implications that arise from it, as the said participant
“Ethical Issues of the Milgram Experiment.” Associated Content. Yahoo, 8 November 2008. Web. 12 October 2011.
The learners were a part of Milgram’s study and were taken into a room with electrodes attached to their arms. The teachers were to ask questions to the learners and if they answered incorrectly, they were to receive a 15-450 voltage electrical shock. Although the learners were not actually shocked, the teachers believed they were inflicting real harm on these innocent people.... ... middle of paper ...
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
Milgram’s experiment started shortly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann began. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi who tortured many Jews during the Holocaust, and had others under his hand do whatever he told them to do. Milgram decided to plan a study to merely see if the followers of E...
He did not fully disclose the fact that the “learner” was not receiving any electric shocks, as well as the true purpose behind the experiment. To make the experiment more of a reality to the “teachers” he gave them a real electric shock on one of the lower voltages, to give them an idea of what pain the “learner” would be experiencing. Diana Baumrind in her article “Is Milgram’s Deception Research Ethically Acceptable?” she writes, “Lying to subjects when obtaining ‘informed’ consent violates the right of prospective subjects” (Baumrind, para.3). On the contrary, Saul McLeod, who has a “degree in psychology and have a masters degree in research,” (simplypsychology,org), writes in his article, The Milgram Experiment “[h]owever, Milgram argued that ‘illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths’. [(Milgram, para. 43-44)]” (McLeod, para. 1, Ethical Issues). In the 1960s there was no mandatory ethical rules of conduct, there was only suggestions that did not have to be taken. Taking this into account, I believe that the way that Milgram went about the proposition of the experiment was deceitful. Especially given the fact that Milgram shocked the “teacher,” and the “learner” was an actor that was never
Firstly, the experiment took place at Yale University, which creates an atmosphere of credibility and importance. Those participating were also lead to believe that their contribution went to a worthy cause – to advance knowledge and understanding of learning processes. They were also told that the victim (the learner), was taking part voluntarily meaning they had an obligation to fulfill even if it became unpleasant, (also applies to the teacher). Additionally, the volunteers were being paid which created a further sense of commitment to the investigation. Those who took part also had little knowledge about how psychological experiments ran, as Milgram’s study was most likely the first one they ever partook in. Therefore they had little knowledge about the rights and expectations of the situation, and felt more confined than if they had been through a similar experience prior. The participant was also under the impression that the roles of being the teacher or learner were assigned randomly, so there were no feelings of unfairness in the system. The partakers had also been assured that the shocks were “painful but not dangerous” and that the procedure was all part of a worthy long term cause (Holah). Lastly, the victim responded to all of the questions until the 300 Volt was reached, convincing the participant of their willingness and persistence to
In Lauren Slater’s book Opening Skinner’s Box, the second chapter “Obscura” discusses Stanley Milgram, one of the most influential social psychologists. Milgram created an experiment which would show just how far one would go when obeying instructions from an authoritative figure, even if it meant harming another person while doing so. The purpose of this experiment was to find justifications for what the Nazi’s did during the Holocaust. However, the experiment showed much more than the sociological reasoning behind the acts of genocide. It showed just how much we humans are capable of.
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.
Dalrymple starts his essay by stating that some people view opposition to authority to be principled and also romantic (254). The social worker Dalrymple mentions on the airplane with him is a prime example that certain people can be naturally against authority, but she quickly grants authority to the pilot to fly the plane (255). Dalrymple also mentions his studies under a physician and that Dalrymple would listen to her because she had far greater expanse of knowledge than him (256). Ian Parker writes his essay explaining the failed logic with Stanley Milgram’s experiment and expounds on other aspects of the experiment. One of his points is the situation’s location which he describes as inescapable (238). Another focus of Parker’s article is how Milgram’s experiment affected his career; the experiment played a role in Milgram’s inability to acquire full support from Harvard professors to earn tenure (234).
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
After reading Stanley Milgram experiment I thought it was a little crazy. The experiment did really upset me. Some people are going to far they could really hurt somebody. Just because someone is telling them to do it. They could hurt or kill innocent people. It did shock me when a lot more people kept on going. They were afraid that something would happen to listener and they don't want responsibility. People are always told to listen to authority but you have to think about what's right and wrong they could tell you to do anything dangerous.
Stanley Milgram, interested in how easily ordinary people’s actions could be influenced, for example, Germans in WWII, conducted an experiment measuring people’s willingness to obey an authority. Milgram set out to test the Shirer hypothesis which goes as follows: “Germans possess an elemental character flaw that explains their inclination to eradicate the Jewish populace. This flaw is the inclination to indisputably abide by authority, regardless of the malignant commands they received” (“Basis for Milgram’s Obedience Experiment”). Though praised for his research on the human cognitive, Milgram was also highly criticised. The following three ethical issues arose regarding Milgram’s experiment:
Even though the essay explains Milgram’s ideology of obedience, Baumrind questions every claim that Milgram made and either disagrees or supports his actions. Baumrind states that the results of the study should be invalidated because the experimental situations are “not sufficiently accurate models of real life experiences,”(Baumrind 7) and the data are “hard to reproduce” (Baumrind 7). She focuses on the nature of results and not the effect it had on the claims relating to disobedience of authority. Baumrind makes the claim that if the results were altered, the experiment could have had a completely different impact on an observer’s viewpoint towards the experiment.
First of all, Milgram’s research on conformity was an experiment to test and observe the behavior of individuals, to see if there is a controversy between obedience to authority and personal conscience. The results were that about 60% of the participants continued on with the experiment to the highest level of electric shock. This explains that the normal people would more likely to put away their personal conscience to obey an authority figure whom they view as a more powerful one. If I were a participant in Milgram’s research on conformity, I believe I would carry out the order until the end of the experiment. Just like the majority of the participants back then, I would also carry on the order because as the experimenter give out the series