In 1961 and 1962, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments designed to test an ordinary citizen’s capacity to inflict physical harm on another human being. Based on the results, Milgram concluded the core of obedience occurs when a person perceives himself as the means for carrying out the wishes of another, and therefore no longer considers himself responsible for his actions. Were Milgram’s experiments ethical? Were his conclusions valid?
At least two authors, Ian Parker, a writer for the New Yorker, and psychologist Diana Baumrind of the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, reject his claims.
In his article “Obedience,” Parker discusses Milgram’s past and personal life, the ethics of …show more content…
Baumrind argues that there is a false analogy between Milgram’s lab and Nazi Germany (Baumrind 93). This undermines the wider social significance of Milgram’s work. It is unclear to Baumrind why Milgram alluded to Hitler’s Germany and his own laboratory (Baumrind 93). Parker stresses that the experiment was possibly needed Milgram could justify the war atrocities committed by the Nazis and enable Americans to perceive this new Cold War ally in a positive manner (Parker 102). Because of Milgram’s interpretation of Nazi mentality, Parker also believes Milgram was sympathetic toward the Nazis (Parker 102). Both authors consider Milgram’s overly-broad connection to the actions of the Nazis to be invalid. The comparison between Milgram’s laboratory and Nazi Germany was wrongfully stated in his …show more content…
The laboratory is an unfamiliar setting for many people and the behavioral atmosphere changes noticeably in this setting. “Because of the anxiety and passivity generated by the setting, the subject is more prone to behave in an obedient, suggestible manner in the laboratory than elsewhere” (Baumrind 90). The situation in the lab was constructed in such a way that obedience was encouraged, stacking the odds against the subject (Baumrind 91). Parker would agree that the setting of an experiment will make volunteers more susceptible to obey commands, but he acknowledged that was not the goal for Milgram’s experiment (Parker 97). In a real-life situation, the subject would have more room to question, to choose, to decide, to disobey. Experiment results are swayed by a laboratory’s setting; therefore, in Milgram’s case, the experiment did not produce accurate results. According to McLeod, the way one achieves accurate results in the “real-world” is by limiting the margin of error (McLeod). Milgram failed to do
At least two authors, Ian Parker, a writer for the New Yorker, and psychologist Diana Baumrind of the Institute of Human Development, University of California, Berkeley, reject his claims.
In his article “Obedience,” Parker discusses Milgram’s past and personal life, the ethics of …show more content…
Baumrind argues that there is a false analogy between Milgram’s lab and Nazi Germany (Baumrind 93). This undermines the wider social significance of Milgram’s work. It is unclear to Baumrind why Milgram alluded to Hitler’s Germany and his own laboratory (Baumrind 93). Parker stresses that the experiment was possibly needed Milgram could justify the war atrocities committed by the Nazis and enable Americans to perceive this new Cold War ally in a positive manner (Parker 102). Because of Milgram’s interpretation of Nazi mentality, Parker also believes Milgram was sympathetic toward the Nazis (Parker 102). Both authors consider Milgram’s overly-broad connection to the actions of the Nazis to be invalid. The comparison between Milgram’s laboratory and Nazi Germany was wrongfully stated in his …show more content…
The laboratory is an unfamiliar setting for many people and the behavioral atmosphere changes noticeably in this setting. “Because of the anxiety and passivity generated by the setting, the subject is more prone to behave in an obedient, suggestible manner in the laboratory than elsewhere” (Baumrind 90). The situation in the lab was constructed in such a way that obedience was encouraged, stacking the odds against the subject (Baumrind 91). Parker would agree that the setting of an experiment will make volunteers more susceptible to obey commands, but he acknowledged that was not the goal for Milgram’s experiment (Parker 97). In a real-life situation, the subject would have more room to question, to choose, to decide, to disobey. Experiment results are swayed by a laboratory’s setting; therefore, in Milgram’s case, the experiment did not produce accurate results. According to McLeod, the way one achieves accurate results in the “real-world” is by limiting the margin of error (McLeod). Milgram failed to do