Stanley Milgram is a well-known psychologist whose revered yet controversial experiments on obedience forge a popular name for him. His experiments offer plenty to critique, and many respected psychologists tore his work apart. One author, Diana Baumrind, critiques Milgram in her article, “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience,” and explains the unethicality of his work and the assumed rights of the subjects. Ian Parker on the other hand, in his article “Obedience,” states that while Milgram’s experiments were unethical, they were still significant. Both Parker and Baumrind effectively, although occasionally unfairly, discuss the ethical aspect from different points of view of Milgram’s obedience experiment. The first ethical
…show more content…
Though the volunteer blindly accepts the experimenter’s rules which often resulted in embarrassment and discomfort for the subject, Baumrind states that the subject needs to be fully informed of the aspects of the experiment so he or she can decide to continue or not (Baumrind 92, 94). However, researcher Emma Connolly effectively explains deception is important for a study of this nature (Connolly). In one part of Parker’s article, he states that some subjects were “generous enough to role-play for the sake of science…[and] were only obeying the demands of amateur dramatics” (Parker 100). In other words, some subjects believed that because they were not deceived, they should merely play along for the research, thus agreeing with Connolly. In Connolly’s article, she explains the results would logically be invalid if subjects were made aware of the purpose and logistics of the experiment (Connolly). Contrary to Connolly and Parker’s observations, academic writer Martyn Shuttleworth presents that participants must not be deceived and must be informed of consequences according to modern ethical standards (Shuttleworth). In this case, the consequences for the subject were often loss of self-esteem and guilt from the realization that he or she could have harmed the victim (Baumrind
Though the volunteer blindly accepts the experimenter’s rules which often resulted in embarrassment and discomfort for the subject, Baumrind states that the subject needs to be fully informed of the aspects of the experiment so he or she can decide to continue or not (Baumrind 92, 94). However, researcher Emma Connolly effectively explains deception is important for a study of this nature (Connolly). In one part of Parker’s article, he states that some subjects were “generous enough to role-play for the sake of science…[and] were only obeying the demands of amateur dramatics” (Parker 100). In other words, some subjects believed that because they were not deceived, they should merely play along for the research, thus agreeing with Connolly. In Connolly’s article, she explains the results would logically be invalid if subjects were made aware of the purpose and logistics of the experiment (Connolly). Contrary to Connolly and Parker’s observations, academic writer Martyn Shuttleworth presents that participants must not be deceived and must be informed of consequences according to modern ethical standards (Shuttleworth). In this case, the consequences for the subject were often loss of self-esteem and guilt from the realization that he or she could have harmed the victim (Baumrind