The Milgram Experiment Is Ethical

Ethical Guidelines that are Broken in Milgram's Study on Obedience The ethical guidelines suggest that debriefing the participants after the experiment is essential, which Milgram has done it thoroughly in order to reveal the aim and the true purpose of his study. Although he did not expect the out come of his research, but his ethics shows that the research is beneficial of understanding the welfare of World War II.

The Milgram Experiment violates three of the five principles outlined in the Five General Principles of Ethics. Milgram wanted to see if there was a connection between “the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience” (McLeod, 2007). Milgram’s hypothesis that he based his experiment on was “How the German people could permit the extermination of the Jews?” (Dan Chalenor, 2012). The first one that Milgram’s experiment violated was “Principle A: Beneficence and Nonmaleficence” which is where “psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm” (Ethical principles, 2013, p. 3, para. 3). The second principle that was violated was “Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility” which is where

The participant was not given full disclose about the details of the experiment, making the research untruthful. Freedom was another principle that was violated since the participants’ ability to withdraw from the experiment was highly discouraged. Even though it was possible to withdraw, not much power was given to the participant. Lastly, Milgram was neither altruistic nor giving of dignity to the participant. Participants showed signs of stress and possible psychological damage due to the process of harming another individual, but that did not stop the experiment. Milgram instructed the participants to continue the study until the very end. In order to make this experiment more ethical, Milgram should have set up the experiment in a way that did not give the illusion of causing harm to another human being. Also, participants should have been able to withdraw from the experiment without questioning. Lastly, Milgram should have known to stop the study once he saw the participant showing signs of distress and pain. This is to cause less harm to the participant and promote

The Milgram Experiment conducted at Yale University in 1963, focused on whether a person would follow instructions from someone showing authority. Students (actors) were asked questions by the teachers (participants), if the students got the answer wrong they would receive a shock each higher than the previous. The shocks ranged from Slight shock (15v) to Danger! (300v) to XXX (450v). Stanley Milgram wanted to know if people would do things just because someone with authority told them to, even if it was hurting someone. I believe that the experiment was a good way to test the obedience of people

Milgram proved his belief be a series of 20 experiments with 1000 participants. He studied how people would respond to outright commands given by someone of authority to give punishment on a learning. So, if the learner gives the wrong answer the teacher(participant) would admit a bolt of electric shock delivered by a switch. Would the participants be obedient to the social constraints of authority or disobey the authority(experimenter), hence, delivering a bolt of shock or not delivering a bolt of shock? Also, at what level will the participant disobey and refuse to give punishment to the learner? Personally, I feel my best choice if I was a participant in the study is the choice from the beginning of the experiment to not continue to participate. Still, I think it is very possible to get wrapped up in wanting to please the authorities persuasion and submit to their direction, then, the outcome is giving punishment to the learner long after my moral sense tells me to stop. Ultimately, if the study was conducted today many people believe our culture in America has not changed enough to get a different outcome in a study like Milgram’s

One of the guidelines for experiments is to give participants informed consent. This means that they should be fully aware of the nature of the experiment, and any risks which the participants may be subjected to. In Milgram’s study, he told participants that the experiment was to test human learning through a memory game, which was partially true. In reality, however, the focus point was on obedience to authority figures, and the extent to which people would inflict pain on another individual simply because they were told to. This immediately breaches one of the guidelines, as participants were deceived and the true nature of the experiment was hidden. An issue with deception, however, is it cannot be avoided in all cases in order to provide the results in which the experiment is looking for. For example, if Milgram told

Baumrind declares that Milgram’s experiments are unethical because of the possible harm that the teachers are exposed to during the teaching. In an article, published on Yahoo’s Associated Content, the author writes that because of Milgram lying to the subjects about what type of experiment they were participating in was the main reason of unethical interpretations (Associated Content). This reason is in agreement to Baumrind’s beliefs when she writes of the manipulation and embarrassment subjects are beginning to encounter when experiments are taking place. She cites the Ethical Standards of Psychologists, using this to present the standards that Milgram possibly overstepped while conducting the experiments. However when reading the the opening line, “Only when a problem is significant ...

While both Milgram and Zimbardo’s methods were flawed and unethical towards the participants I believe that the ends of the Milgram experiment justified the means

The Milgram experiment is one of the most controversial psychology experiments of the past century. I was familiar with it prior to accessing the simulation on the elearning site from an ABC television Four Corners episode on the nature of torture. So when I participated in the simulation, I stopped administering the shock at the first sign of distress from the subject at thirty watts. If I was in the actual Milgram experiment I would like to believe that I would have behaved in the same way. Human nature dictates that we believe that only abnormal people are capable of sinister behavior. This belief that internal attributions cause certain behaviours assures us of some stability and security in our day-to-day lives and yet the

2. My thoughts regarding the Milgram Obedience Experiment were completely different from the Asch Experiment. I believe that this experiment was completely inhumane. First and foremost, If I were told to conduct anything

The two experiments were a tested at different time periods and for different purposes. For instance, the Milgram experiment was originally tested to study obedience to authority, in response to Adolf Eichmann trial, a Nazi war criminal, that stated he,” was just stating orders under the Reich.” The experiment proved to be that under authority rule, actions, even if morally wrong and unethical can be still taken forward with due to a strict authority presence.

Psychological research has been growing and developing new ways of studying human behavior, collecting knowledge and expanding our understanding of our nature. For instance, studies involving human subjects presented risks for violation of ethical research guidelines, by pushing the limits of human experience (Kim, 2012). Throughout history, there have been numerous studies that elevated this concern, such as the Milgram Experiment of 1963. One of the major ethical raised was that it lacked informed consent from the participants and eventually raised the issue of protecting human subjects. This paper examines the ethical compliance in psychological research and emphasizes the importance of ethics and professionalism by analyzing different

Before Milgram’s findings, the fact that people were inclined to obey to authority figures was already realized. He just confirmed this belief. Milgram followed effective steps by using precise procedures. He made sure that the experiment reflected features of an actual situation in which a person would obey to an authority figure: offering compensation (monetary reward in this experiment), being under pressure (Prods 1 to 4 in this case), and mentioning that the person who obeys can withdraw. These features can also be seen in a situation where a soldier is commanded to fire, for instance. A soldier will get a monetary compensation, is under pressure to obey because he chose to be part of the military, and he knows that he can resign at any time. Milgram created an experiment so precise and detailed that more than enough evidence was demonstrated.

Stanley Milgram’s central focus for his experiment was to demonstrate how far average Americans would go in inflicting pain on somebody. This experiment was initially conducted in 1963, right after the Eichmann’s trial had happened. “Were these Nazis a different kind of human being” since they were killing the Jews left, and right? Everyone thought that the Nazis had no “thresholds of violence.” From this the world needed an explanation for the Nazis’ behavior, so Milgram decided to give it to them. He wanted to prove that the Nazis weren’t vicious human beings, but what they were doing (killing Jews) was just obeying orders. Therefore, he made a basic outline: take an average American, put them in the “right” environment, and this will change them into a “slaughterous Nazi.” Overall, he just wanted to prove that the Nazis were obeying their orders (Wu, 2003) .

The Milgram experiment is probably one of the most well-known experiments of the psy-sciences. (De Vos, J. (2009). Stanley Milgram was a psychologist from Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II. Milgram selected people for his experiment by newspaper advertising. He looked for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.