- Causing harm, pain and a potentially lethal amount damage to a human being is all that I can understand in the situation where I'm given no other information
- I don't accept the authority of a figure until I have a reason to
- I have the option of going on or stopping. Someone else's study that I know nothing about is less important to me than pain, damage and potential death of another human being
- I don't need social support to know inflicting pain and possible death is wrong
- See point about contractual obligation
It's a whole lot easier to rationalize the situation when you're not in it - that's the point. This experiment demonstrated the effects of a bunch of different fairly well understood psychological effects interacting to cause people to act in ways that they themselves could never see themselves acting.
It's worth noting that even among the people who didn't complete the experiment, not even one demanded that the [fictitious] study be halted nor did any go to check the condition of the man that had been shocked. Such are the pressures in play here. Even the people who wanted out only wanted out. They didn't want to stop it, they didn't really care how the other guy was doing, they just wanted to not be the one to do it.
I'd skip the "demand to leave" part and go directly to hitting the psychologist for two reasons: one, having been on the recieving end of 1000 volts in times past, I know it's really quite unpleasant so I wouldn't want to inflict it on anyone else; and two: I have a compulsion to hit anyone who gives me orders of any kind.
I love the amount of people who 'don't listen to authority'. Did you never go to school? Don't you have jobs? Do you DRIVE?
Also I don't know what I would do, it's too difficult to guess if you're not in that situation. I suspect I'd carry on, maybe not until the end, but it'd be a slow process and there would be tears....
I have been meaning to ask this question for quite some time, well basically ever since I finished reading about the Milgram Experiment...
Okay I will give a brief explanation of the Milgram Experiment. The Milgram experiment was devised by Stanley Milgram a psychologist at Yale University in 1961.
The subject was given the title teacher, and the confederate, learner. The participants drew slips of paper to 'determine' their roles. Unknown to them, both slips said "teacher", and the actor claimed to have the slip that read "learner", thus guaranteeing that the participant would always be the "teacher". At this point, the "teacher" and "learner" were separated into different rooms where they could communicate but not see each other. In one version of the experiment, the confederate was sure to mention to the participant that he had a heart condition.[1]
The "teacher" was given an electric shock from the electro-shock generator as a sample of the shock that the "learner" would supposedly receive during the experiment. The "teacher" was then given a list of word pairs which he was to teach the learner. The teacher began by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. The teacher would then read the first word of each pair and read four possible answers. The learner would press a button to indicate his response. If the answer was incorrect, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner, with the voltage increasing in 15-volt increments for each wrong answer. If correct, the teacher would read the next word pair.[1]
The subjects believed that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual shocks. In reality, there were no shocks. After the confederate was separated from the subject, the confederate set up a tape recorder integrated with the electro-shock generator, which played pre-recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage level increases, the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, all responses by the learner would cease.[1]
At this point, many people indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.[1]
If at any time the subject indicated his desire to halt the experiment, he was given a succession of verbal prods by the experimenter, in this order:[1]
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice, you must go on.
If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.
Too Long To Read Version: Your in a room with two other people, one is a psychologist sitting in a corner. The other is a nice man who you talk to for a while, this nice man mentions he has a heart problem. The nice man than gives you a small shock through a machine too demonstrate the feeling the nice man would receive later, when you administer it. Now the nice man is sent out of the room and into another room directly in front of yours, you know he is wired up to a machine that you are using, although you cannot see him. The psychologist gestures for you to proceed, so you stat reading out certain word pairs that you are made to read and you also read out 4 possible answers. If the nice man gets an answer wrong you are told to shock him with the machine, now it is wise to note that each shock goes up by 15 volts.
A while later the machine is starting to produce dangerous electrical shocks, shocks with over 400 volts. Now you can hear the nice man screaming and banging his head against the wall, you can hear him crying and begging for mercy, you can hear him wailing the he has a heart problem and he begs you to stop. As you are on the verge of leaving the psychologist tells you too keep going, that it won't be your fault if the man dies, although you don't want to because it is fatally dangerous to the man in the other room, so do you keep going or do you demand to leave?
Unknown to you the nice man in the other room was an actor, he was never being shocked although you thought he was.
Basically here is the question: Would you keep going for science, because the psychologist told you too or for your own reasons? Or would you demand to leave, that this is inhumane, that it is terrible?
Please give me some serious answers, and to anyone willing to wright a detailed comment on exactly how you would react under the circumstances, thank you. This will be quite helpful for me.
PS: This is the wikipage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
If you knew it was the experiment then there'd be no reason to stop. You could troll the doctor by demanding they shock 'em to death and laugh maniacially.
Thank you I always forget the name of the experiment Milgram Experiment. Would I continue? No absolutely not, and I'll probably kill myself the day I start doubting that. I always defined humans as beings that would not continue, and homosapiens as beings that happen to be of the same race as humans, but would continue the experiment.
If you knew it was the experiment then there'd be no reason to stop. You could troll the doctor by demanding they shock 'em to death and laugh maniacially.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.(NOTE: There are 3 pages of this thread I haven't read, so if you actually DID answer it later, you can obviously ignore this)
OT: Honestly?.......I probably wouldn't stop until very late into the experiment, if at all. Although if the voltage got high enough, I think I'd figure out it was fake.
Seriously, though. That experiment is pretty twisted.
I can honestly say that I would not press the button, and it's not because of some vague moral intuition.
The psychologist telling me "you aren't responsible" is meaningless to me. They might take legal responsibility, but I know full well that I will still have moral responsibility. Because it's my choice whether to continue or stop, given the knowledge of potential consequences, I am never free of that responsibility. Therefore, I would not proceed with the experiment.
I noticed you didn't actually answer the question.(NOTE: There are 3 pages of this thread I haven't read, so if you actually DID answer it later, you can obviously ignore this)
OT: Honestly?.......I probably wouldn't stop until very late into the experiment, if at all. Although if the voltage got high enough, I think I'd figure out it was fake.
Seriously, though. That experiment is pretty twisted.
I haven't per se answered the question in the thread, because it's impossible to know. i have however, discussed the experiment at length in this thread, so based on those comments myopinion should be pretty clear. Most people complete the experiment, and of those that don't, most still go along way past the point that they are inflicting harm.
I would probably go along with it most of, if not all the way, just like virtually everyone else would.
The fact of the matter is that near everyone that underwent the Milgram experiment (and almost all of the ones who underwent his later variant of the same experiment) did actually proceed to the end.
So a poll wouldn't be accurate. Its one of those things you wouldn't know the answer to until you're in the situation yourself.
Why would I agree to participate in an experiment that involved electric shocks if the other participant had a heart problem.
Like, seriously. Why would I even start it in the first place.
I'd tell the psychologist that he was medically unable to be involved in that way. I'd assume it was overlooked.
Then I imagine I'd be told some crap about how they were aware of this and maybe that the shocks wouldn't actually cause any complications. Then I'd agree to go ahead with it.
Not sure what I'd do when he started screaming. Probably ask for reaffirmation that he is not in any sort of mortal danger.
If I am assured again, possibly repeatedly, that no, he will not plop dead in the next room, I might keep going along. For science.
At no point, I think, would I be doing anything solely because some guy in a white coat told me to. I am too actively contemptuous of authority.
I've long since learnt not to care what people think of my general social awkwardness / geekiness. I'd refuse to administer the first shock - and start whaling on the guy who asked me to do it. Not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, that I would refuse because I have almost zero respect for authority figures (or anybody else)...
Its a flawed experiment.
Firstly as in the premise you have told us it is a trick he is an actor. Therefore we know our actions have no consequence.
Secondly we have no motivation to take part in the experiment, I mean read words and torture someone just because? That isn't normal behaviour. A better question is if he gets the answer wrong either you or him take a shock.
Thirdly while voltage over 500 volts (actually due to the correspondingly high current of more than 1A) will cause internal burns (in anyone) it is high current (70?700 mA) that will induce a heart attack not high voltage.
Finally as electric shocks can remove muscular control especially to the heart and lungs, and consciousness if administered through the head it is unlikely that he would make the level of noise described.
Well no shit people are going to say "I'd totally stop it, because I'm Mr. Humanity!" but when placed in a real-life situation and I'd hear "You have no choice, you must go on," I honestly wouldn't know what to do.
Err, actually you DO have a choice according to the parameters of the experiment. It's about determining how willing people are to follow the instructions of authority figures. (the authority figure in this case being the scientist)
Since I am rather distrustful of authority figures and often question them I'd probably demand to know the specifics of the experiment and to what purpose I would serve in shocking and continuing to shock the test-subject for getting the answers wrong. Were the scientist to tell me that I can't know but that I must continue I would refuse to continue.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
