Milgram Obedience Reaction Report
Before I read the Baumrind and Milgram article, I watched the video of Milgram performing the Obedience experiment and did not conclude that the experiment was ethical. I believe that the test-subjects were being manipulated and in result, they were experiencing torment. From an act-utilitarian perspective, I believed that the benefits outweighed the costs but still, I believed that the ethical standards that allowed Milgram to perform this study were immutably preposterous. I believed that there was short-term suffering that happened to the subjects, such as the sweating, cognitive dissonance, and other negative symptoms that the test-subjects expressed. I also believed that there were some long-term consequences of the study. These long-term consequences were constituted by their obedience to authority at the cost of another’s pain. Overall, I was against the experiment from ever replicating.
When I was instructed to read the Milgram and Baumrind article on the ethics of the Milgram Obedience research, I had a deeper understanding on the reasons why the study was done and why the study was rational. When I had heard that some people thanked Milgram for the study initially, I was confused. Reading the article, I found out that the 84% enjoyed being in the study while only 1.3% had negative feelings towards the study in general. Furthermore, Milgram debriefed his participants and asked them if had learned something from the experiment and if the experiment should continue. There were 74 % that had agreed that they had learned something and 80% wanted this experiment to continue. After the experiment was completed, he sent out a report to the subjects about the findings and they agreed that they would want to participate in more experiments like his obedience experiment. A psychiatrist also checked out the individuals that expressed turmoil during the experiment a year later and he checked them out with no concern about any psychological effects on them from the experiment. When I learned about the procedures that Milgram took to make sure his study was a valid study that did not break an ethical code, I was less inclined on putting a bad label on Milgram for disregarding people’s dignity, lack of concern for others, and a rigid pursuit for scientific progression.
In terms of delivering a better argument on paper, I have to be in agreement with the counter-argument provided by Milgram. Not only his rhetoric was better but he addressed many of the issues with Baumrind’s critique on the study and how her arguments were not as well articulated. Some...
