David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):69-79 (2009)
All agree that if the Milgram experiments were proposed today they would never receive approval from a research ethics board. However, the results of the Milgram experiments are widely cited across a broad range of academic literature from psychology to moral philosophy. While interpretations of the experiments vary, few commentators, especially philosophers, have expressed doubts about the basic soundness of the results. What I argue in this paper is that this general approach to the experiments might be in error. I will show that the ethical problems that would prevent the experiments from being approved today actually have an effect on the results such that the experiments might show less than many currently suppose. Making this case demonstrates two conclusions. The first is that there are good reasons to think that the conclusions of many of Milgram’s commentators might be too strong. The second conclusion is a more general one. The ethics procedures commonly used by North American research ethics boards serve not only to protect human participants in research but also can sometimes help secure, to an extent, the integrity of results. In other words, good ethics can sometimes mean better science.
|Keywords||Milgram experiments Research ethics boards Ethics and experimental social psychology Harman Doris Situational pressures|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
John M. Doris (2002). Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Gilbert Harman (1999). Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99 (1999):315 - 331.
Gopal Sreenivasan (2002). Errors About Errors: Virtue Theory and Trait Attribution. Mind 111 (441):47-68.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. Brazier (2008). Exploitation and Enrighment: The Paradox of Medical Experimentation. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):180--183.
Peter Danielson (2010). Designing a Machine to Learn About the Ethics of Robotics: The N-Reasons Platform. [REVIEW] Ethics and Information Technology 12 (3):251-261.
Steven C. Patten (1977). Milgram's Shocking Experiments. Philosophy 52 (202):425 - 440.
Deborah C. Zeller (2007). Virtue, Virtue Skepticism, and the Milgram Studies. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):50-59.
Miguel Pina E. Cunha, Arménio Rego & Stewart R. Clegg (2010). Obedience and Evil: From Milgram and Kampuchea to Normal Organizations. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 97 (2):291-309.
Robert F. Card (2005). Individual Responsibility Within Organizational Contexts. Journal of Business Ethics 62 (4):397 - 405.
C. D. Herrera (2001). Ethics, Deception, and 'Those Milgram Experiments'. Journal of Applied Philosophy 18 (3):245–256.
Emma Cave & Søren Holm (2003). Milgram and TuskegeeâParadigm Research Projects in Bioethics. Health Care Analysis 11 (1):27-40.
Neera K. Badhwar (2009). The Milgram Experiments, Learned Helplessness, and Character Traits. Journal of Ethics 13 (2-3):257 - 289.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads73 ( #15,647 of 1,089,079 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #3,910 of 1,089,079 )
How can I increase my downloads?