Diana Baumrind often disagreed with the ethics of the Milgram Experiment; however, Ian Parker took on a different perspective than she. Diana Baumrind, author of, Review of Stanley Milgram 's Experiments on Obedience, claims in his experiments the ethics he possessed were immoral and wrong. Throughout her article she continually disagreed with everything Milgram had "achieved", starting from the first experiments results which appeared as a review in American Psychologist in 1963 (Baumrind 89). While Diana disputed what she thought was the atrocious ethics of Milgram 's experiments, she furthermore believed Milgram should have debriefed the subjects more than what he had done (95). Although Baumrind opinionated her thoughts on these issues,
…show more content…
As Cari Romm cites from Hollander in her article, " ...Capacity for evil lies dormant in everyone, … The ability to disobey toxic orders is a skill that can be taught like any other." These test subjects could have easily walked out of the room; however, Both Romm and Baumrind implied the subjects seemed clouded by their thoughts and beliefs, they must listen to authoritarian simply because he/she retained more knowledge than the subject. In this experiment, Ian Parker took on a different perspective than Baumrind in arguing with the statement of harming the subject from authority. Parker recognized the obedience spectrum of this claim (Parker 96). Parker implies obedience to authority correlates to how willing humans, in nature, are going listen to authority. As Dr. Stephen Behnke, author of Ethics Rounds: A Classic Study Revisited, states, "… our profession must find a point on that continuum... " (Behnke). As a human in nature, they are more willing to participate in more strenuous situations if the authority is professional in the area of expertise. Although Baumrind felt authority was an issue, she also argued the debriefing process was much too little for the amount of trauma they had been …show more content…
Baumrind argued that after each subject walked out of the experiment Milgram 's approach to reconcile the distraught they had been through was unconvincing (92). Martyn Shuttleworth, author of Milgram Experiment Ethics, often talked how emotionally stressful this experiment was for people. Shuttleworth correlates in her article that there indeed were long term side effects of this taunting experiment (Shuttleworth). While Baumrind implied there should have been a greater amount of a debriefing process, Ian Parker agreed with how the debriefing process occurred (Parker 99). Parker believed that Milgram 's experiments were a breakthrough for Milgram (95). Parker implied that Milgram 's research was a step toward to figuring why people behaved in certain situations. Parker implyingly disagreed with Baumrind simply because the subject could have walked out of the experiment at any point in time; however, they chose not to. Saul McLeod, author of The Milgram Experiment, writes, " Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm." While Baumrind has clear and precise opionions on how Milgram should have run his experiment, Ian Parker effectively made his claims and thoughts more precise and
As Cari Romm cites from Hollander in her article, " ...Capacity for evil lies dormant in everyone, … The ability to disobey toxic orders is a skill that can be taught like any other." These test subjects could have easily walked out of the room; however, Both Romm and Baumrind implied the subjects seemed clouded by their thoughts and beliefs, they must listen to authoritarian simply because he/she retained more knowledge than the subject. In this experiment, Ian Parker took on a different perspective than Baumrind in arguing with the statement of harming the subject from authority. Parker recognized the obedience spectrum of this claim (Parker 96). Parker implies obedience to authority correlates to how willing humans, in nature, are going listen to authority. As Dr. Stephen Behnke, author of Ethics Rounds: A Classic Study Revisited, states, "… our profession must find a point on that continuum... " (Behnke). As a human in nature, they are more willing to participate in more strenuous situations if the authority is professional in the area of expertise. Although Baumrind felt authority was an issue, she also argued the debriefing process was much too little for the amount of trauma they had been …show more content…
Baumrind argued that after each subject walked out of the experiment Milgram 's approach to reconcile the distraught they had been through was unconvincing (92). Martyn Shuttleworth, author of Milgram Experiment Ethics, often talked how emotionally stressful this experiment was for people. Shuttleworth correlates in her article that there indeed were long term side effects of this taunting experiment (Shuttleworth). While Baumrind implied there should have been a greater amount of a debriefing process, Ian Parker agreed with how the debriefing process occurred (Parker 99). Parker believed that Milgram 's experiments were a breakthrough for Milgram (95). Parker implied that Milgram 's research was a step toward to figuring why people behaved in certain situations. Parker implyingly disagreed with Baumrind simply because the subject could have walked out of the experiment at any point in time; however, they chose not to. Saul McLeod, author of The Milgram Experiment, writes, " Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm." While Baumrind has clear and precise opionions on how Milgram should have run his experiment, Ian Parker effectively made his claims and thoughts more precise and