Human experimentation! The term conjures up images, in the minds of the public, of people strapped to tables with electrodes on their temples, being lobotomized through the eyes with icepicks (the special, sterile kind), trepanning, the development of LSD and so on and so forth. The minds of the public, and all except for a few of the minds of the less-than-public, also recoil at the proposition of the term, and justifiably so.
But how far is too far? When do the ends no longer justify the means? Is human suffering ever a fair price for human progress? An oft used example of this dilemma for us psychology students is presented in the form of the Milgram experiment, released in America in 1963. Curious about the protestations of Nazi Officers ("We were just following orders," "yes, but that's no excuse!") during the War Crimes trial following World War 2, Milgram designed an experiment to test how far people were willing to go while under the authority of another person. Persuant to this, Milgram set up a system of "teacher" and "student," where the teacher would ask the student a question, and every time the student got the question wrong, the teacher would be directed by a professor to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to the student, up to the point where the shocks would be, more likely than not, lethal. When (if, actually) the teacher would express misgivings about his actions to their administrator, they would invariably assure them that this is a necessary step for the experiment, and that the student's wellbeing was the administrator's responsibility, NOT the teacher's.
Surely, you say, that the vast majority of people would not consent to delivering potentially lethal electric shocks to another person for the sake of a social experiment. Well, 26 out of 40 subjects got all the way to the top level, lethal shocks of 450 volts. Only one subject actually downright refused to go on before reaching 300 volts. Now, of course the students were in on the experiments, and the teachers weren't actually administering electric shocks, but they didn't know that at the time. The experiment blew a LOT of people away, and resulted in a good deal of psychological trauma for the participants in the study. As such, an Ethics Board today in America would NOT allow this manner of experiment to be performed again. Funnily enough, some British psychologists actually replicated Milgram's experiment earlier this year.
My question is, was this study worth carrying out? Were the results worth learning? My personal position on this, actually, is yes. It reveals a fundamental aspect of human nature, the diffusion of responsibility and the tendency to acquiesce to authority. It shows the levels that normal human beings can reach under the right (and honestly, not even particularly stressful) conditions. The participants' suffering was worth showing them and everybody else what people could become, whether or not they 'deserved' to suffer. Knowledge of phenomena such as this is useful for future reference, teaching us to be aware of troubling blind spots and taking us in the direction of evolving into a more understanding and critically thinking society. Too bad about the damage done to the people flipping the switches, but after all "following orders" is no excuse, right? I say good for Milgram and good for the Brits for giving us the reminder.
What're your thoughts?
Chatboard (0)