The use of this rhetorical device allows him to establish his main idea subtly, due to the fact that some of the terms he uses, the German people would not understand. As Hitler goes into detail of explaining what he is going to do, he uses various terms that make the Germans believe he is doing well when in fact it is for a horrible crime. “...to conduct humanitarian warfare – that is, to attack only fighting troops.”(Hitler, Adolf). With this use of euphemism, Hitler is able to conceal that he is going to bomb large places but saying he is only attacking the troops that are fighting. This type of euphemism allows him to influence the German people with what their opinion on the issue is going to be.
Torture is sometimes used when a suspect is believed to have information on a catastrophic event or might know of a terrorist organization. The suspect is then exposed to a painful series of different mental and physical methods to give up the desired information. Torture has been used in times of war and in situations where the information could save a society form danger. However, torture should never be justifiable or acceptable because it usually doesn’t provide reliable information, the person that we want to torture might truly not know the information that we would like to obtain, and it would degrade our nations integrity. “Suspects that are inflicted with torture will say just about anything to
The government’s purpose was to inform the citizens of Britain of the options that they had. They had many reasons to be honest about the information in the pamphlet because the lives of many innocent people were on the line. The pamphlet can be compared to a promise to the people. This information was recorded during World War II but before the German air strikes. This document helped right history because it was developed during a major war in world history.
After the study had concluded the subjects were de-briefed and told the true nature of the experiment. They met with the learner so they could see he was fine and had come to no harm however this did not take into account the psychological stress caused during the experiment when they had been led to believe they had killed someone by giving them 450 volt shock. During the study Milgram did take into account some ethnical implications, however by deceiving and encouraging the participants to continue despite the consequences was not ethical and the study should not have been allowed to continue. He was unable to determine the mental state of the participants as the information given at the start of the study by the
51. I understand that many researchers think the use of deception in research is necessary because human subjects are sensitive to how others perceive them and how they perceive themselves to be. These researchers believe that this self- consciousness will lead to inaccurate research results. I, however, do not think that researchers should ever use deception when conducting research with humans simply because it is unethical. When intentionally deceiving any participant, you risk harming them because the integrity of the informed consent process is jeopardized.
“Means are the tools or behaviors that one employs to achieve a desired outcome [either good or bad]. Ends are those outcomes that one desires to achieve [either good or bad as well]. (pg 27) The Tuskegee Study had bad means with bad ends, being that the doctors and researchers knew they were going to misinform their patients, in hopes they would stay with the study. This was deliberately intended unethical behavior. Although the researchers, doctors and nurses took care of these men, they did not properly inform them of the outcome from having “bad blood”, syphilis.
What we don’t know before Milgrams experiment’s is just how powerful the tendency is. And having been enlightened about our extreme readiness to obey authorities, we can try to take steps to guard ourselves against unwelcome or reprehensible command’(p.73)”’. This just shows that people don’t realize the effect of obedience from people from a higher authority. With Milgrams experiment there were many problems, consisting of the biases parts like the environment. The laboratory was an unfamiliar environment for the participants, and they may have felt embarrassed.
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.
Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist, conducted an experiment in 1963 about human obedience that was deemed as one of the most controversial social psychology experiments ever. Ian Parker and Diana Baumrind, responded to Stanley Milgram’s experiment. Baumrind focuses on the moral and ethical dilemma while, Parker focuses more on the experiment’s actual application. The experiment’s original intent was to determine if society would simply obey to authority when put under pressure by an authoritative figure. Milgram put a twist on the experiment asking the age-old question of, “if the Germans during WWII were simply obeying to authority when carrying out the Holocaust or were they all acting on their own”.
In a Deontology perspective this would be immoral because the player has violated the rules and standards of their contract. People want to follow rules to make moral decisions, but the reward may out way the consequence. Consequentialism is when a decision is made if the oneself feels that the action out ways the consequence. An athlete would think performing at the max for a year and getting the fame would be more important rather than the consequence; it could be the other way around also. When a player takes steroids he or she would rather take the risk for strength and skills, rather than worrying about future consequences.