The Milgram Experiment: Is It Ethical Or Unethical?

When given the task to dismiss a four hundred fifty volt to another human being you don't know, what would you do in that instant if it'd be for the greater cause of science and knowledge? In discussion of psychologist Stanley Milgram, a controversial issue has been whether or not Milgram's experiment was based on the ethical conflict between obedience to authority versus personal conscience. On the one hand, some argue that it was ethical because it would explain Nazi behavior. From this perspective, Milgram believed that all it was just human aggression held deep within and when given the chance to let it out, people would. On the other hand, however, others argue that his experiment was unethical because he damaged people mentally and emotionally.
For example, Morris Braveman, a thirty-nine year old social worker was one of the many subjects for this experiment. He explained how during this experiment, he giggled and tried to stifle it. Mr. Braverman also said how his reaction was bizarre and that he was not acting his usual self. He added on by saying how "This was a sheer reaction to a totally impossible situation...having to hurt somebody" (176). In addition, Mr. Braverman, like all subjects was given a questionnaire and was told the actual purpose of the experiment and that a year later he began to question himself. He felt appalled that he held the capacity for "Obedience and compliance to a central idea... that continued adherence to this value would violate another value." He believed he shouldn't hurt someone that is helpless and not hurting you back, this situation really gave him a lot to think about for future situations. According to Baumrind's review, she backs up how Milgram's findings and his experiments harm people. Her claim would be that the situation they were put in was not accurate and by doing that, Milgram damaged people's trust, dignity, and