Ethical Position on Milgram\'s Classic

ETHICAL POSITION ON MILGRAM'S CLASSIC EXPERIMENT

Stanley Milgram's classic experiment into the nature and limits of human obedience to authority was not unethical at the time that it was conducted for several reasons: First, it was not anticipated that the research subjects would exhibit the extremes of behavior that many of them did exhibit by delivering what they believed to be maximum electric shocks. Second, it was not anticipated that the research subjects would continue delivering shocks after the sham research subject began complaining and asking to cease participating in the experiment. Third, the level of acute psychological trauma experienced by the subjects was much greater than expected in advance, largely because of the first two reasons having to do with the expectations of the experimenters.

Detailed Response

At the time of Milgram's classic experiment into the nature and limits of obedience to authority, the experiment was not unethical, mainly because the experts never anticipated the results that could potentially correspond with significant negative consequences for the study's participants. Milgram made a conscientious attempt to mitigate any of those potential harms after the fact, but with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the experiment probably should not have been conducted in the first place because it is distinctly possible that residual negative consequences to the subjects defied the experimenter's attempt to minimize them through debriefing. It is also possible that some of those negative consequences occurred at levels of consciousness below the awareness of the participants, thereby invalidating the suggestion that their personal assessments of the effects they may have suffered were inconsequential.

The experiment raises serious ethical issues in several respects. First, it caused the research subjects significant emotional and psychological stress during the experiment. At the very least, contemporary standards of ethical research would require that study participants be aware, in advance, of the fact that their participation could expose them to acute stress and that they consent to that condition. In fairness, Milgram did not anticipate that the research subjects would experience as much stress as they did during the experiment.

Second, the experiment raises a serious ethical issue in that it held the potential for causing long-term harmful changes to the psychological well-being of the research subjects. On one hand, Milgram did carefully and conscientiously debrief his subjects in connection with which he also reassured them that their behavior was perfectly normal. Likewise, he made sure that each subject met the sham memory research subject and that there was no doubt that the latter had not actually been harmed at all and that they were not angry at the research subjects. Finally, Milgram conducted long-term follow-up interviews in which the research subjects indicated that they suffered no long-term harm and that they supported the experiment.