Stanley Milgram's Experiment To Test Civil Disobedience

1244 Words5 Pages
In 1963 Yale professor, Stanley Milgram conducted an experiment to test civil disobedience. In his experiment, Milgram tested civil disobedience, which can be defined as a refusal to obey laws that are thought to be unjust, by putting the test subject in the position to either obey or disobey an authority figure. After doing this, Milgram not only came to the shocking conclusion that the majority of the subjects obeyed despite the circumstances, but he also found the subjects violated many aspects of ethics. Diana Baumrind points out several flaws in Milgram’s experiment in “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience.” Baumrind says that Milgram’s experiment was unethical in many ways and lacked validity.…show more content…
Baumrind said that the subject’s safety and self-esteem weren’t protected. She also concluded that the subjects didn’t get the respect that they deserved because the experimenter was not concerned about the subject’s welfare (Baumrind 330). Baumrind also feels that the experiment was unethical because Milgram did not tell the subjects everything about the experiment. Hiding information from the subjects caused her to believe that the subject and the experimenter relationship was violated. Most of the subjects discovered they were more likey to obey authority figures than they might have expected and most went through a type of self-discovery. Even though they found something new about themselves, Baumrind suspects that not all of the subjects wanted this self-discovery because they all probably felt guilty after they found out they would obey an authority figure to the point of harming another person. According to Baumrind, the setting is another reason Milgram’s experiment was flawed. She says that because the experiment was done in a laboratory, the subjects were more prone to obey the experimenter than if they would have been elsewhere (Baumrind 330). Baumrind was also concerned with the subjects and how they were after the experiment. She thinks that the emotional disturbances the subjects encountered never completely left them. Lastly, Baumrind concluded that there is no convincing parallel between Milgram’s findings and destructive obedience such as Hitler and the
Open Document