Guadalupe Loza
Professor Comstock
English -80
28 ctober, 2014
Obedience: Behind of an Unethical True
The action of believing on what is right according to reality and its own self; make obedience part of each individual responsibility regardless other people behavior. Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist that conducted in the 1960s one of the most famous studies referring on how people obey or disobey to certain authoritarian instructions. The experiment basically consisted on put in one of the participants to an unclear situation in which they would be required to select either to obey or disobey the instructions given by an authoritative person. The role of the participants were to indicated a set of words to the learner( …show more content…
During the experiment, the participants (teacher) were told by an authoritarian and persuasive person to indicate a set of words to the learner (actor), and designate electric shocks to them if the answer was given wrong. Milgram states in the article “The Perils of Obedience” that “the shocks started from 15 volts [, to ultimately] 450 volts [according to the answer that was given by the learner.]”(63) This basically states and unethical way of dealing with such a problem. In response to that action, Diana Baumrind, an American clinical and developmental psychologies indicates in her article “Psychology in Action” that must of the participants were having symptoms of “sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, digging their finger nails into their flesh and groan [when they felt some type of blame to what they were doing to the learner]” (422). In other words these actions questioned Milgram’s obedience study, as part of something unrealistic and unethical towards the context of the experiment. In fact, some people often indicate unethical behaviors that lead them to not accept their responsibilities of their own actions. Moreover, people during these days seeing themselves as more technicians’ objects, rather than representative of their own …show more content…
Some of the participants were expressing their own thoughtful opinion during the experiment. However, the fact that the participants believed that they were producing some type of pain to the learner, make them extremely unpleasant of their own actions. One of the participants reacted in an offensive and aggressive way in order to avoid looking at their own consequences. For example, Joshua Chaffin was one of the participants whose short effect relates to medical conditions; he state that “the experiment was causing [him] so much stress that [he may had thought the idea of] having a heart attack” (qtt. In Slater 51). The factor that Joshua had to experiment such a profound distress , make the study be unethical for making the subjects to a unclear situation where his or her life could be on risk, also it cannot be forgotten or assuaged that the subjects where convicted to a whole lie until the end. At the end of the experiment the subjects had understanding that they didn’t were harming someone else (learner); this action make prove that it wasn’t any harm during the experiment; however the harm could be represented more on each participants worries. There was no noted psychological support for any lasting short -effects that may have been caused by the experiment,
Professor Comstock
English -80
28 ctober, 2014
Obedience: Behind of an Unethical True
The action of believing on what is right according to reality and its own self; make obedience part of each individual responsibility regardless other people behavior. Stanley Milgram was an American social psychologist that conducted in the 1960s one of the most famous studies referring on how people obey or disobey to certain authoritarian instructions. The experiment basically consisted on put in one of the participants to an unclear situation in which they would be required to select either to obey or disobey the instructions given by an authoritative person. The role of the participants were to indicated a set of words to the learner( …show more content…
During the experiment, the participants (teacher) were told by an authoritarian and persuasive person to indicate a set of words to the learner (actor), and designate electric shocks to them if the answer was given wrong. Milgram states in the article “The Perils of Obedience” that “the shocks started from 15 volts [, to ultimately] 450 volts [according to the answer that was given by the learner.]”(63) This basically states and unethical way of dealing with such a problem. In response to that action, Diana Baumrind, an American clinical and developmental psychologies indicates in her article “Psychology in Action” that must of the participants were having symptoms of “sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, digging their finger nails into their flesh and groan [when they felt some type of blame to what they were doing to the learner]” (422). In other words these actions questioned Milgram’s obedience study, as part of something unrealistic and unethical towards the context of the experiment. In fact, some people often indicate unethical behaviors that lead them to not accept their responsibilities of their own actions. Moreover, people during these days seeing themselves as more technicians’ objects, rather than representative of their own …show more content…
Some of the participants were expressing their own thoughtful opinion during the experiment. However, the fact that the participants believed that they were producing some type of pain to the learner, make them extremely unpleasant of their own actions. One of the participants reacted in an offensive and aggressive way in order to avoid looking at their own consequences. For example, Joshua Chaffin was one of the participants whose short effect relates to medical conditions; he state that “the experiment was causing [him] so much stress that [he may had thought the idea of] having a heart attack” (qtt. In Slater 51). The factor that Joshua had to experiment such a profound distress , make the study be unethical for making the subjects to a unclear situation where his or her life could be on risk, also it cannot be forgotten or assuaged that the subjects where convicted to a whole lie until the end. At the end of the experiment the subjects had understanding that they didn’t were harming someone else (learner); this action make prove that it wasn’t any harm during the experiment; however the harm could be represented more on each participants worries. There was no noted psychological support for any lasting short -effects that may have been caused by the experiment,