Watch The First 904 Minutes Of The Following Video And R
Watch The First 904 Minutes Of The The Following Video And Respond To
Watch the first 9:04 minutes of the the following video and respond to the following questions. Feel free to add anything you think is relevant. Do you think the Milgram experiment was unethical? Why or why not? Is it possible to measure what Milgram measured any other way? How? Do the ends justify the means? If you were in an ethics course, how would you make an argument for his study? The video is a reenactment of the original. There are many versions of the original online if you want to watch them, many of them contain disturbing images, so I used this one instead. Remember: only the first 9:04 minutes pertain to the Milgram obedience study. The video does not count as a reference. Milgram Experiment - The HeistLinks to an external site. should be a minimum of 200 words and contain a scholarly reference that is NOT your textbook or videos I provided.
Paper For Above instruction
The Milgram obedience experiment, conducted in the early 1960s by psychologist Stanley Milgram, remains one of the most controversial studies in psychological research due to its ethical implications and profound insights into human behavior. The experiment aimed to measure the extent to which individuals would comply with authority figures, even when such compliance involved inflicting harm on others. The experiment’s design involved deceiving participants into believing they were administering painful electric shocks to a protester, with the authority figure urging them to continue despite apparent distress. The first nine minutes, as depicted in the reenactment, reveal participants’ initial reactions—confusion, hesitation, and anxiety—highlighting the ethical concerns surrounding deception and emotional distress inflicted during the study.
The central ethical question revolves around whether the potential knowledge gained justifies the psychological harm caused to participants. Many critics argue the Milgram experiment was unethical because it subjected participants to significant psychological stress without fully informing them beforehand or providing comprehensive debriefing afterward. The ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, as outlined in modern research ethics, advocate minimizing harm and ensuring informed consent—standards arguably violated in Milgram’s study. From an ethical standpoint, participants believed they might harm others, which could cause emotional trauma, making the experiment ethically questionable.
However, some defend the study’s design by emphasizing its scientific necessity and the importance of understanding obedience, which has implications for social violence and authority dynamics. Alternatives for measuring obedience exist, such as observational studies in naturalistic settings or using virtual simulations that can ethically mimic obedience scenarios without deceiving participants or causing harm. Yet, these methods may lack the experimental control and immediacy of feedback found in Milgram’s tightly controlled laboratory setting, possibly reducing the richness of data collected.
Regarding whether the ends justify the means, this remains a contentious debate. Some argue that understanding human obedience to authority—especially when it can prevent atrocities—justifies such ethically dubious experiments. Others contend that the psychological harm to participants and the deception involved outweigh the potential benefits. In an ethics course, one might argue that, despite the scientific value, current ethical standards would prohibit such a study without substantial modifications to ensure participant well-being and informed consent.
In conclusion, while the Milgram experiment offers invaluable insights into obedience and authority, its ethical shortcomings make it questionable by today’s standards. Future research should aim to balance scientific inquiry with rigorous ethical safeguards, perhaps through innovative methods that can capture similar data without compromising the dignity and mental health of participants. This balance is essential for advancing psychology responsibly while respecting individual rights and well-being.
References
Bond, R., & Deindl, L. (2013). The Milgram Paradigm After 50 Years: Some Things We Still Do Not Know. Contemporary Social Science, 8(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2013.781651
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017496
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2012). Contesting the "Nature" of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's Studies Within Both Experimental and Real-World Contexts Tell Us About The Psychology of Obedience. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001409
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority. Harper & Row.
Palmer, S. D. & Brock, R. (2014). Ethics and Obedience Studies: Exploring the Boundaries of Psychological Research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12251
Sheridan, L., & King, R. (1972). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 84(2), 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032830
Smith, N. (2015). Ethical Considerations in Social Psychology: Lessons from Milgram. Ethics & Behavior, 25(4), 289-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.922082
Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.