The case study that I have chosen for this particular paper comes under the section ‘Thinking Critically 1.2’ titled ‘The Man Who Shocked the World’. The case study mainly revolves around a controversial psychological experiment conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, a 28-year-old psychologist at Yale University who was also a Harvard graduate with a PhD. He basically chose to study human behavior and provide insights on the capacity of the members of the human race to inflict harm on each other. In order to carry out this study, he advertised for and chose participants from the general public who were only told that they would be volunteers in an experiment on punishment and learning.
The set-up of the experiment was such that the ‘teacher’ …show more content…
Utilitarianism (according to the classical approach) argues that the ‘morally right action is the action that produces the most good’ (Driver, 2014). If understood entirely in terms of the results or the consequences produced by an action, then it can be argued according to utilitarianism that the best moral action is the one that produces the best consequences. The strength of this theory according to me is that it endorses as right the actions that are morally good for everybody, not just the one who does it or is affected by it. Also, according to the classical theory of utilitarianism, impartiality is an important value that must be present when a morally right action with the right consequences is being carried out (Driver, 2014). The weakness of this theory according to me is that ‘good’ is often equated with ‘pleasure’ in utilitarianism which can create a lot of misunderstandings and lead to wrong conclusions being derived out of situations. When analyzing the case study under consideration through the lens of utilitarianism, one can argue that Dr. Milgram conducted the experiment for the overall good of the human community because he came up with revelations that he argues explains the innate behavior of human beings submitting to authority. However, utilitarianism says that the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.
2. A. The research was conducted by first paying his participants $4.50 ($30 today) to come in and take part in the experiment. The group of participants he selected was composed of 40 males between 20 and 50 who were told that the experiment was to test the effect of “punishment on learning“. There was 15 skilled-unskilled workers, 16 white-collar employees, and 9 professionals. Apart from them, there were 2 key participants, a confederate, who was actually a 47 year-old accountant and an actor who dressed as the experimenter. He decided to test the power of obedience in a laboratory which was clever on Milgram’s part. He designed a realistic looking fake scenario, complete with a shock chair and men dressed in lab coats. The most realistic component was the fake shock generator that actually quite scary-looking. It had levels of shock that went up from 30 to 450 volts and the levels were labeled to describe the intensity of the shock. The participants
The main point of Hydroxycut is to help loose weight in a fast amount of time just like every woman wants diamonds, I think that everyone wants that youthful looking body back as well. We all want the energy that we had as a youth and the metabolism as well so that we can eat whatever
Philip (2009) to try and see what was being said about prison treatment was true, this was called the Stanford prison experiment. This experiment only lasted 6 days due to the circumstances versus 6 weeks. Zimbardo had to find out whether the prisons were brutal due to the guards or due to the environment. It was clear that the role of the guards was the issue and not the environment. This was discovered when a sample was chosen from the population. Each induvial was set up to be a guard or a prisoner at random. In this study researchers got see the unfortunate power of social situations. Once prisoner and guard roles were assigned each group were told that they were being watched by the researcher and his colleagues, the guards were to not hit the prisoners, and debriefed about the experiment. Although all this was told the guards took situations into their own hands and the power took over. The guards began simply viewing them as prisoners and the prisoners began to fear the guards. It is important to note the researcher did not intervene but continued to observe when the hitting was taking place. This is particularly important because not only are the guards fitting the rod but the researcher is at fault for the fundamental attribution error but viewing the situation for what it
The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same
Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.
Traci Stein Ph.D., an integrationist at Psychology Today, writes in her article “Dealing with Everyday Sadists and Other ‘Dark Personalities’” that everyday sadists will never take responsibility for harming another person, and they may seek harm in others because they believe it will benefit them in some way (Stein). In this case it is perceived that Stein and Milgram would agree that those capable of sadistic, inhumane acts will react in those manners without taking responsibility like the teachers in the Milgram experiment. On the contrary, Zimbardo effectively writes in his article about how dehumanization is portrayed within the six -day experiment by both the guards and the prisoners because of the way they were treated by each other (Zimbardo 111). If true, then this is also true in everyday life when people are treated differently than they are used to and will react abnormally or inhuman for that moment. Dr. Metin Başoğlu, Head of Section of Trauma Studies at King's College London and the Istanbul Centre for Behavior Research and Therapy, writes in the article “Cruel and Inhuman Treatment Causes More Mental Damage Than Physical Torture” about his findings of people being held captive in hostile, humiliation, psychological manipulation situations which appear to cause more mental than physical damage to the people
Utilitarianism as an ethical theory is seen as 'an act that is morally correct if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the act'. (Crane, Matten, Chapt. 3). It is a principle that concentrates on the outcome of an act and compares the good outcome with the bad outcome and supports the outcome that brings the greatest amount of good for all stakeholders involved.
Stanley Milgram conducted one of the most controversial psychological experiments of all time: the Milgram Experiment. Milgram was born in a New York hospital to parents that immigrated from Germany. The Holocaust sparked his interest for most of his young life because as he stated, he should have been born into a “German-speaking Jewish community” and “died in a gas chamber.” Milgram soon realized that the only way the “inhumane policies” of the Holocaust could occur, was if a large amount of people “obeyed orders” (Romm, 2015). This influenced the hypothesis of the experiment. How much pain would someone be willing to inflict on another just because an authority figure urged them to do so? The experiment involved a teacher who would ask questions to a concealed learner and a shock system. If the learner answered incorrectly, he would receive a shock. Milgram conducted the experiment many times over the course of 2 years, but the most well-known trial included 65% of participants who were willing to continue until they reached the fatal shock of 450 volts (Romm, 2015). The results of his experiment were so shocking that many people called Milgram’s experiment “unethical.”
Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.
Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).
Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.
The year was 2062 when I first met the man who changed the world. Dr. Anderson sat there, at a desk and as he stared blindly forward as though he was pondering his life decisions'. I sat with many others overlooking Anderson, waiting for the events to unfold. Avery professional looking man sat next to him and spoke to him in a whisper every so often as though to consolidate with him while he arranged his papers. As time went on, it was noticeable that Anderson was becoming more and more anxious as he looked up at the clock regularly. This was abundantly clear when a man in uniform stated all rise. Everyone in the room rose and the room went silent.