Was He Wrong: Ethics Of The Milgram Experiment

Was He Wrong: Ethics of the Milgram Experiment 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:

Accordingly, Milgram explained to each of the participants the purpose of the experiment they had undergone. He thoroughly debriefed each of his subjects to ensure them that they had caused no harm to the other participant. Milgram went on to explain how the test was conducted, and that their reactions were common. He also found that the experiment caused no long term psychological harm to the participants.Thus, Milgram caused no harm to his subjects. Be that as it may, experts, such as Diana Baumrind, argue that Milgram's experiment failed to administer adequate measures to screen participants from the trauma and awareness that they were capable of inhumane actions (Austerer et al., 2011). Many of the subjects were evidently perturbed. Indications of stress included twitching, pulling on earlobes, sweating, stuttering, nervous laughter, lip biting and digging fingernails into palms of hands (Austerer et al., 2011; McLeod). Three of the 40 subjects tested had violent convulsions, and many implored to be allowed to end the experiment (McLeod). Baumrind asserts that the experiment should have been put to a halt upon the participants’ first indication of distress. She claims that due to the the acute trauma caused by the experiment, the participants will possibly be unwilling to engage in subsequent cognitive research. However, Milgram argues that adequate actions were indeed taken to protect his subjects. He asserts that he thoroughly debriefed all of the participants, assuring them that they had harmed no one, thus having nothing to be ashamed of. They were told that their behavior was normal and understandable (Austerer et al., 2011). He also states that the symptoms caused by the experiment were only short term. After interviewing his participants one year later, nearly all of the subjects said they were happy to have participated