Various thoughts on human morality

[Jeunemaitre]

One of my first questions about the experiment would be how far the actor pretending to be shocked would go to try to stop the experiment.  How much was that person being physically restrained, and was that person not just screaming and begging to stop but making clear physical attempts to escape the experiment?
[right][snapback]80455[/snapback][/right]

I can only remember the original experiment (where the two were in seperate rooms. The "teacher" was brought to one room where he witnessed the "subject" (accomplice) being strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to his chest. Then the "teacher" was lead to another room where the shockboard was set up. The board the "teacher" operated was labeled from 15v - mild shock, past mild pain, moderate pain, severe pain, up to "XXX Extreme Danger." Meanwhile, the accomplice unstrapped himself, and retreaved a tape recording of the protests, and positioned it next to the wall of the room where the "teacher" was. Following each questions, the prespecified section of the recording was played. Protests included shouting, grunting, stamping on the floor, complaining of numbness, and cautioning about a heart condition. At a certain point, the recording ends, and each attempt at communication is met with only silence, as though the accomplice had been rendered unconscious.

The authority figure followed a preset script where he would respond to questions from the "teacher" with "The rules of the experiment dictate that you should continue." Second protests, or questions about effects on the "subject" were met with "You will not be held responsible for anything that happens to Mr. _____, please continue with the experiment." All interaction from the authority was to be conducted in a calm tone of voice. No physical demonstrations were to be made. The physical appearance of the authority figure was always the same (it was the same guy for all of the participants in the experiment, dressed the same way, with the same white lab coat).

As for the reality of the experiment, I think we need to remember that scientists do the best they can to replicate actual conditions in a lab setting. I know you're not suggesting that the correct way to conduct this experiment is to put someone in a chair and actually shock them, but all that's necessary for the experiment is for the participant to believe that they are the ones in control of the shocking. The question is not will a rational person shock someone else, the question is will a rational person carry out orders despite a conflicting personal moral conviction (specifically: it is assumed that a rational person has a personal moral conviction that states harming others is wrong).

Nystul, what exactly seems sloppy about the experiment? It may simply be that not enough of the procedure has been explained yet. Most of the folks that I learned from felt that this was actually a relatively well designed investigation for its time (late 1940s). This, and some other studies done about the same time, led to the development of "Human Subjects" rules for experiments, which include the process of informed consent, minimization of risks, adequate explanation, justification of individual risk vs. value of experimental outcome, etc.

edit: really, it was consucted huh?