Question

Discuss TWO ethical dilemmas that resulted from Stanley Milgram's obedience research. Do you think that the ends justified the means in this case? Does the fact that nobody was really physically shocked make a difference? What if you wanted to conduct a replication of the experiment but wanted to actually administer shocks? Do you think that the findings would change regarding the obedience of the participants?

Answer 1

The ethical issues with the Milgram's Obedience experiment were as follows-

The person giving the shock had to give a 400 Volts of shock, and even though no one actually received the shock, the subject of the study (who was giving the shock) had an illusion that the other person was actually getting the shock because of hearing the noises of kicking in pain and shouting etc. This very experience of giving others pain may scar people for life.

It may also break the inhibitions one had for violent acts. Hence, later on the subject may actually start acting more violent than before because now they have stopped inhibiting themselves.

Many people also have identified many other ethical dilemmas with this experiment.

The end does not justify the means, because life is more important than knowledge gainied out of it. Mental health is also more important than any knowledge gained puttin mental health at stake. The fact that many subjects might have to live with a guilt of them inducing pain to others only for not learning certain number of syllabus is a bi deal. This guilty conscience has an effect on mental health as well.

The fact that no one actually got any shock gives a relief that the subjects have not actually hurt any one for not knowing a syllabus, however, it does not change the uilty conscience that many people may have for the choices they have made. Moreover, the experience of hearing the noises of groaning in pain, even thouh no one actually experienced pain itself may scar people for life.