Poll: Do you think the Milgram Experiment was unethical?

[RhombusHatesYou]

All I can say is I'm glad that most of you will never have the chance to sit on the Ethics Review Committee of a School of Psychology.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Difference being that in the Milgram experiment people were volunteering to be experimented on.

Until they wanted to stop, asking at first, then begging. The "experiments" continued regardless.

I think it'd be relatively easy for someone to convince themselves that these are scientists, that they know what they're doing, and that they wouldn't ask you to do anything genuinely dangerous. You grab a random person off the street, and what are the chances they know just how much is 15 volts, or 450?

Unethical or not, I don't think it does a very good job at replicating the conditions.

The machine was clearly labelled with "danger" at a certain point. The "victim" also fell silent afterwards. Most people carried on even after the "victim" appeared to have fallen unconcious.

The article I read said that when asked the researcher would tell the subject that it would cause no lasting harm. Although it was wikipedia.

-Psycology Student-

The experiment was/IS (Still ongoing) like this, people whom came in were told it was about new teaching methods, and they were supposed to try and 'train' the person in the chairs memory, ever time the actor failed to perfectly replicate it, they would press a button to shock and the actor would ofcourse imitate being shocked, every failure would result in the level going up by one.

Actors were put in the chair, and they made pained movements when they were 'shocked' with the ones up to danger. At the beginning of danger they would start screaming, and halfway through they would be silent.

Throughout the entire experiment the doctor would say 'It creates no lasting harm' 'it wont cause any lasting harm'

Obviously he would say that, the experiment was to test how humans were affected by Authority.

Another thing, was found. That if raised correctly to question authority (Like we are today on the internet, wonderful thing that it is) there is a 90% chance we wont blindly obey orders like the experiments done in the last 70's early 80's.

So we can pretty much rest easy, once the entire world is on the internet exposed to countless lies daily and learn how to think themselves, this kind of thing will be less relevant. As a whole though, with all the people who aren't, the people who are trained to follow authority (Soldiers) it is very much still relevant. As it shows that some of the most evil things done throughout history does not necessarily have anything to do with how unsympathetic the people doing said acts were, rather that people learn from childhood to trust and follow authority.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The fact is, the people where allowed to leave at any time and no physical pain was inflicted.

Period.

Between those 2 facts, there is no logical way the experiment can be called "Unethical."

In fact, not only did we learned quite a few valuable things, I would be willing to bet the test subjects where made better by it like with the Eye Prejudice experiment that one elementary teacher did. When later interviewed, all of the kids said every class should do the same thing.

 

[Hawk eye1466]

There's still a lot we don't know about ourselves and by banning experiments like this we're only making it harder to learn, yes there should be restraints on experiments like this but all you have to do is have them sign a waver saying

If you pass a specific evaluation you may be used in an experiment, we can't give you the details because it could invalidate the results but some people may find the tests or results upsetting.

Or something similar to that just so people going in know they might be doing something unpleasant or apparently immoral.

 

[Haukur Isleifsson]

Yes it is unethical because it violates the criteria of informed consent. People participating in the experiments are not informed properly about what they are going to do. It is also questionable if it results in more good than bad as although it's results might be interesting and thought provoking the experiment is likely to traumatize the people who participate.

 

[deth2munkies]

The experiment broke the ethical guidelines established by the APA at the time and definitley violates the stricter standards in place now. There's no possible question that it was unethical. Whether or not it was wrong is debatable, but I don't think one could argue that we got essential, useful data out of it that we could not have gotten elsewhere or by better means (the experiment with the fake shocks, etc.).

 

[Zombie Sodomy]

What we have here is basically a ban on introspection at a society level.

No. What we have is a ban on badgering people into thinking they've tortured someone to death because you think that the knowledge that could be gleaned might be useful.

If you were willing to torture someone, then you deserve all the badgering that you get.

 

[Lieju]

Obviously he would say that, the experiment was to test how humans were affected by Authority.

Another thing, was found. That if raised correctly to question authority (Like we are today on the internet, wonderful thing that it is) there is a 90% chance we wont blindly obey orders like the experiments done in the last 70's early 80's.

It's not necessarily bad to recognise that someone is an authority on a certain subject, though. If a scientist running an experiment on electricity tells me 'this will not cause harm', I'm inclined to believe them.

I agree Internet is cool and all, but it also breeds people who think their uninformed opinion on whatever is equally as valid as someone's who has spent time getting to know the subject.

 

[solemnwar]

I'm curious if some people continued, not because they felt that they were doing nothing wrong and that if something happened it would be on the head's of the researchers, but because they felt if they didn't something bad would happen?

I mean, the four prompts are kind of creepy:

1.Please continue.
2.The experiment requires that you continue.
3.It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4.You have no other choice, you must go on

One you get passed the first one, it starts getting a bit unsettling. To me, it feels like there's a veiled threat involved (especially the last one). People do tend to be self serving, especially if the "other" is a stranger.

 

[Silvanus]

Here we have a clear warning about how none of us is above committing atrocities, and therefore it's important to be aware of this and guard against it, and it was condemned because the subjects didn't like finding out that they're Not So Different from the Nazis.

A relatively minor point that I feel I should bring up:

It isn't entirely true that the subjects reacted badly. Some did, certainly, and there were emotional breakdowns, but IIRC, Stanley Milgram was approached by more than one of his former subjects some time after the test, who wished to thank him for the insight.

NB: This is not me passing judgement on whether the test was unethical or not; I think it was, but it's still important to bring up this little point.

 

[thethird0611]

Four large quotes, so I spoilered all of them.

Spoiler: TAGM

P.S.

During the experiment, the recording even talked about 'Heart Problems'...

Not to be a pedantic bastard (Well, OK, I am, but still), but I believe that mentioning heart problems was only part of experiments after the first, to see if it would have any change in obedience. As in, "If we say this person has heart problems, will they still shock them to death?"
Indecently, for those curious - experimentation found that this is one of the few parameter changes that actually have no effect good or ill - as in, just as many people "shocked" a "person with heart conditions" as someone without.

I am pretty sure that was there from the very start.. If you found evidence other wise, it still wouldnt mean to much. The 'shocked' participant (which was just a recording during the tudy), went silent before the last switches, and yet, the were still coerced to continue. Like "Hey, hes not talking", "Continue the experiment" "If he doesnt respond, flip the switch" kinda stuff.

Spoiler: Mcmullen

So, because I believe in ethics, im replying to more people than usual in this thread xD

The things is, you have to look at the Psychological aspect in these experiments to. These participants believed they were being made to electrocute a participant over and over, worse and worse. During the experiment, the recording even talked about 'Heart Problems', and after it got to the XXX switches, the participant went silent. Even while silent, if they didn't answer the question, the 'authority' figure made the participant -still- flip the switch.

Remember, both the Milgram and the Prison Experiment are apart of why our Psychological ethics are so strict against any type of harm.

If I understand you correctly, you feel that these experiments were unethical because they made people uncomfortable?
My original point was that learning truths about oneself is often uncomfortable, even though it is vital to our development. The subjects of the experiment realized this and 84% said they were glad they participated, some even thanking Milgram for it.
If a single person refuses to examine their flaws because it makes them uncomfortable, we tend to treat that as a sign of immaturity, yet that's what we're doing as a society with the Milgram experiments.
Personally, I worry more about the damage to society through our ignorance of other collective flaws because of similarly deceptive but (in the long term) harmless experiments that we're not conducting.
This is a concern I've had for over a decade, and I'm posting it here because 1) it seems senseless to me and 2) if there is a good reason for not doing them, I'd like to know what it really is.
So I'd like to hear from you if there's more to it than people feeling uncomfortable, anxious, or depressed about what they learned about themselves.

No, its not because it made people feel 'uncomfortable'. For reference to that topic, I am actually -running- an experiment where the condition makes people feel uncomfortable, but it isnt to the point that Milgram went.

Do you even hear yourself though man? They arent feeling uncomfortable, anxious, or depressed that they 'found something about themselves', they are feeling those emotions because they, in their own world, nearly killed a man with electric shocks. There are MUCH better ways, and they have been done by Milgram to, to come to these -same- conclusions without harming anyone.

So, you say 84% were glad they participated. What about the 16% (which, I have no idea where those stats came from). You have to care about -every- participant during research. These are not harmless experiments, these are experiments that could leave, and this is very important, ONE person harmed psychologically. It matters that much to researchers that -everyone- comes out unharmed.

Look, I dont know what credentials you have in Psychology, but these 'harmless' experiments are against our current ethic code because it can cause lasting, unnecessary harm. There is -plenty- of sense why we dont do this experiments anymore, and I would tell you most, if not everyone, who does research under APA knows -exactly- why we dont do another Milgram.

Spoiler: excalipoor

Look bud, let me tell you about this. Through the 4 years of my psych degree, ive seen this experiment in the general aspect, the social aspect, the behavior aspect, the learning and conditioning aspect, and let me tell you...

They DID think they were hurting someone. They did believe they were the one conducting the experiment, and it was unethical.

This experiment, while unethical, was done freaking well. That is what PSychologist do, we work within ethical boundaries and can deceive you easy.

I'm not saying the subjects had it all figured out, but that they had a way to justify their actions to themselves. Either by having doubts about the legitimacy of the situation, or by believing they weren't directly responsible. The subjects weren't abandoning their morality, they were trying to work around it. You have to believe what you're doing is either right, necessary...or not true.

Next you're going to tell me that the experiment was never about morality to begin with. I know that, but that's the way some people see it, and I think that's bullshit. And with that said, I'm not going to argue this further. I am just an armchair psychologist after all.

Look man, watch some videos over the live reactions of some of the participants in the study. I actually have a link to one in an earlier comment. The thing that was happening was they didnt want to do it, but the authority figure pushed them on. It wasnt them justifying anything, they just did what they didnt want to do.

Im going to provoke Goodwins law here, but its because this study was actually largely based off the Nazi's. They want to know why soldiers actually did what they did at the camps, why they followed the orders of the people above them. They may not of wanted to, but they followed authority, which is taught to us since elementary.

Im kinda glad you beat me to it though, yeah. You can add morality in there if you wanted as the driving force behind the participant, but the study was about authority. Would people disobey authority, or continue to shock the person because they were told to.

Spoiler: Ken Sapp

Sorry, got the Milgram experiment and the Stanford Prison experiment confused.

The Milgram experiment I don't see as being unethical, since there is no potential for physical harm and subjects are free to end their participation at any point. The idea as I understood it was to find out how far people would go in following instructions from an authoritative figure.

The Stanford Prison experiment was definitely unethical and flawed from the very beginning. With too few controls and far too many variables I don't think it could have yielded any usable data. The researcher also removed his own objectivity by personally participating in the experiment.

The United States only has a good record of ethics in research for about the last fifty years though as some of the experiments our own government carried out in the first half of the century on convicts and military men only barely fall short of those carried out by the Nazi's during WWII. We need to be reminded of our own mistakes in the pursuit of greater knowledge so that we do not repeat them, but the knowledge even from those unethical experiments is valuable.

So, because I believe in ethics, im replying to more people than usual in this thread xD

The things is, you have to look at the Psychological aspect in these experiments to. These participants believed they were being made to electrocute a participant over and over, worse and worse. During the experiment, the recording even talked about 'Heart Problems', and after it got to the XXX switches, the participant went silent. Even while silent, if they didn't answer the question, the 'authority' figure made the participant -still- flip the switch.

Remember, both the Milgram and the Prison Experiment are apart of why our Psychological ethics are so strict against any type of harm.

I do not find anything unethical about the way the Milgram experiment was conducted. In my opinion, the Milgram experiments cause no harm, although they do reveal a basic flaw in the way most people respond to authority. The subjects were told that they could stop at any time and the calm orders to continue the "experiment" they thought they were participating in were merely a prod. They were not bound to a chair and told that they would not be unbound unless they complied. They complied willingly, even if against what their own conscience may have been telling them. Had there been someone actually wired up to receive voltage though... That would definitely have carried it into the territory of harm and unethicality.

All you seem to be focusing on is the physical aspects, which is not what is unethical about it. It is unethical that they were coerced into continuing, which could cause lasting harm psychologically. Also, they were just told "Please continue", they were told... "Please continue. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no other choice, you must go on."

THAT in and of itself is unethical. They participant is experiencing mental anguish, and you are coercing them to continue. This experiment was made to MAKE the participant continue, not just suggest it.

Im pretty sure I wont reply today again, to tired. So this may or may not be my last response.

 

[chocolate pickles]

No one got hurt physically, and sorry if i come across as cold, but even if it did cause some psychological damage, the information could be of use in the future. For the greater good and all.

 

[Dryk]

All I can say is I'm glad that most of you will never have the chance to sit on the Ethics Review Committee of a School of Psychology.

I'm actually finding reading this thread just as worrying as the results of the experiment. Especially considering how many seem to be determining that it was ethical with the benefit of hindsight. Yeah most participants thought that it was worth it in the end, yeah we learnt something useful, but you can't know that without running the experiment.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Did someone get hurt?

No.

Was the goal of the experiment to harm others via it's results?

No.

Was it done in compliance with standards of experimentation, including avoiding bias and opening it to scrutiny?

Yes.

It was not unethical. It can be scary what humans can do, but exposing uncomfortable truths is just a reality with science. We know this truth about ourselves now, we can work to improve it.

Want to see really unethical experiments? Look to the work done by the Nazi's during the holocaust. Testing on "subhumans" to prove superiority of some races over others while having no care of standard scientific practices. All and all, little more than further excuses to torture humans by people who had no humanity themselves.

Uncomfortable results, unethical experiment do not make.

 

[crimson sickle2]

It was unethical because the people that wanted to stop were told they couldn't and the experimenter didn't consider the long term effects on the human subjects. This experiment could have caused intense self-doubt, self-confidence, and trust issues in it's subjects. The main ethical problem isn't really about acting like Nazi's, but more about how these people thought they were torturing someone, even though that person asked them to stop, because someone else told them to.

The Milgram experiment was important because of what it proved and the ethical guidelines it set up. Many of the guidelines on ethical research currently placed, were placed there in response to this experiment. Nowadays, anyone in the sample group is allowed to leave the experiment at any time and the experiment must be approved to not be able to cause intense psycho-trauma in it's participants. For those who still see this as ethical, even after some above posters explained it incredibly well, the actor in the other room was screaming to let them out and then went silent as the experiment continued, the volunteers were told they had to keep shocking the actor.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Obviously he would say that, the experiment was to test how humans were affected by Authority.

Another thing, was found. That if raised correctly to question authority (Like we are today on the internet, wonderful thing that it is) there is a 90% chance we wont blindly obey orders like the experiments done in the last 70's early 80's.

It's not necessarily bad to recognise that someone is an authority on a certain subject, though. If a scientist running an experiment on electricity tells me 'this will not cause harm', I'm inclined to believe them.

I agree Internet is cool and all, but it also breeds people who think their uninformed opinion on whatever is equally as valid as someone's who has spent time getting to know the subject.

Obviously, but theres a difference between listening to a policeman when he wants your coorporation in an investigation, or a scientist when he wants your help shocking someone in a chair with lethal doses of electricity.

The second one is the one that people are better off doubting.

 

[McMullen]

No, its not because it made people feel 'uncomfortable'. For reference to that topic, I am actually -running- an experiment where the condition makes people feel uncomfortable, but it isnt to the point that Milgram went.

Do you even hear yourself though man?

There's no need for that. I'm not attacking your profession, and I'm not just saying "FOR SCIENCE!!!" I believe ethical experimentation is important both because it's simply right, and because even the appearance of unethical behavior damages scientific credibility.

I'm saying that the reasons I've been given for the ethical status of the Milgram Experiments do not seem well-considered to me. What I know of it makes it look more like a knee-jerk reaction driven by discomfort than a reasoned decision. I know that this might be because I was given the wrong impression about the nature of the experiments or the reasons for their status. I had not heard a good reason from anyone, including you, before this post.

They arent feeling uncomfortable, anxious, or depressed that they 'found something about themselves', they are feeling those emotions because they, in their own world, nearly killed a man with electric shocks.

This is a restatement of things I've said earlier in an attempt to make it clearer. Not much new though:

Spoiler

Perhaps having never felt responsible for someone's death, I don't appreciate the magnitude of those feelings, but at first glance they seem exactly like the sort of thing one should feel when one realizes they've done something horrible. Is it bad to put someone in that situation? Perhaps, but then again they arrived in that position by their choice. The experiment was set up so that if they refused strongly enough, they would be allowed to stop. Most didn't. This seems relevant to me because in real-life situations, refusal is not always as easy as it was in the experiment, and comes with life-altering consequences. These people were not threatened with imprisonment or court-martial for refusal, they were merely told they had to continue.

Please don't think I'm passing judgement on them. I know very well that I have been and probably still am prone to moral cowardice, and would have very likely given the maximum shock as well. But, I've also made enough mistakes in life to know the value of realizing when you've done something wrong, and learning from it. I think never having those realizations is one of the reasons why so many people are complete jerks or worse, and I know some people who avoid facing their flaws because they know it will be unpleasant. That kind of denial doesn't help them, and it doesn't help anyone around them either.

The reasons I've been given for the ethical status of the Milgram experiments sound exactly like someone saying "I don't want to know because I might not like it".

There are MUCH better ways, and they have been done by Milgram to, to come to these -same- conclusions without harming anyone.

If there is, then good. My worry was that the ethics rules completely cut off avenues of inquiry that would shed light on these behaviors. I'm guessing that as a student, you're busy, but this is what I'm interested in hearing about. Can you give an example?

So, you say 84% were glad they participated. What about the 16% (which, I have no idea where those stats came from). You have to care about -every- participant during research. These are not harmless experiments, these are experiments that could leave, and this is very important, ONE person harmed psychologically. It matters that much to researchers that -everyone- comes out unharmed.

I can agree with that. As far as I could tell the rest who responded were neutral. If I had seen evidence that someone was severely damaged by the experience, then I would have agreed that a better way should have been found. I saw no such evidence, and so it seemed to me that while the subjects didn't enjoy the experience, those who did have an opinion on it said later that they were better for it.

So, you can imagine how that made it look like the condemnation of the experiments was a bit of a knee-jerk. Again, if there really was lasting harm caused, then I'd agree that it was unethical.

Look, I dont know what credentials you have in Psychology...

None whatsoever. I'm a grad student in the geosciences. Our ethics training focuses more on privacy and academic honesty than on human testing, except for those who will actually be working with human subjects. This discussion has made me curious about taking a more thorough ethics class though if I can spare the time.

...but these 'harmless' experiments are against our current ethic code because it can cause lasting, unnecessary harm. There is -plenty- of sense why we dont do this experiments anymore, and I would tell you most, if not everyone, who does research under APA knows -exactly- why we dont do another Milgram.

Well, if you can tell us, I'd really like to know. It would be a waste of a thread (and the time spent posting in it) otherwise.

 

[Lieju]

Obviously, but theres a difference between listening to a policeman when he wants your coorporation in an investigation, or a scientist when he wants your help shocking someone in a chair with lethal doses of electricity.

The second one is the one that people are better off doubting.

But it's also about trusting the scientist to know what a lethal dose of electricity is.

Throughout the entire experiment the doctor would say 'It creates no lasting harm' 'it wont cause any lasting harm'

It's not about seeing if people will zap someone with a lethal dose of electricity if asked, it's if they will trust the scientist to know what the lethal dose is.

 

[Nikolaz72]

Obviously, but theres a difference between listening to a policeman when he wants your coorporation in an investigation, or a scientist when he wants your help shocking someone in a chair with lethal doses of electricity.

The second one is the one that people are better off doubting.

But it's also about trusting the scientist to know what a lethal dose of electricity is.

Throughout the entire experiment the doctor would say 'It creates no lasting harm' 'it wont cause any lasting harm'

It's not about seeing if people will zap someone with a lethal dose of electricity if asked, it's if they will trust the scientist to know what the lethal dose is.

Aye, but the entire point of the experiment is to make sure that there is plenty of info at hand (Number of volts on the machines over the buttons, the actor screaming and later on fainting, it saying LETHAL above the number of volts that 'would' be lethal) to determine by independant thought that it is lethal.

Trusting authority in the face of sizable contradiction is what we want.

From the getgo ofcourse you should trust them, but if faced with evidence to contradict their statements (See Wikileaks/Reading the US private diary) you should rise up and object.

 

[ramboondiea]

yeah its unethical, it only really gets to slide past most of the crap thrown at it due to its shocking results, i mean it caused people some serious harm, (passing out, nervous shock, vomiting, panic attacks etc). and many participants where also pressured to continuing well after they had wanted to stop, which is kind of a big no.

don't get me wrong, i think that what was found was an amazing results that really altered how people think about the whole authority/nazi mentality. but i dont think we should ever delude ourselves that it was an ethical experiment,