新西兰哲学assignment代写 服从的危险

2020-03-28 00:11

米尔格拉姆在他的文章《服从的危险》(1974)中指出,关于服从的法律和哲学观点是非常重要的,但它们很少提及人们在面对实际情况时所采取的行动。他在耶鲁大学(Yale university)设计了这个实验,以测试一个普通公民是否愿意仅仅因为一位协助实验的科学家的命令,就对另一个人施加或多或少的痛苦。当领导实验的权威命令参与者去伤害另一个人,甚至比参与者听到的痛苦的尖叫还要多,权威在大多数时候继续命令参与者,即使参与者是如此的道德混乱。实验已经表明,成年人是多么愿意服从几乎任何权力的衡量标准,我们必须尽快研究和解释这一现象。实验本身就引发了有关实验科学的伦理问题,给参与者带来了极大的情绪压力。尽管这个实验在人类心理学上有了有价值的发现,但今天许多科学家认为这样的实验是不道德的。后来的一项调查发现,当时84%的参与者说他们对参与实验感到“高兴”或“非常高兴”,15%的参与者选择保持中立(92%的参与者做了事后调查),他们中的许多人后来感谢了米尔格拉姆。米尔格拉姆不断接到以前的参与者打来的电话,他们想再次帮助他做实验,甚至想加入他的研究团队。然而,实验的经历并没有改变每个参与者的生活。许多参与者没有被告知基于现代实验标准的细节,而退出访谈显示,许多参与者似乎仍然不明白发生了什么。对实验的主要批评不是对其方法的伦理争议,而是它们所代表的意义。参与者来自耶鲁大学1961年在犹太洋流的杂志中写道:当他想停止在中间的“老师”,是一个怀疑”可能只是整个实验设计,为了测试一个普通美国人会服从命令与良心——比如德国纳粹时期”,这是实验的目的之一。米尔格拉姆在他的著作《服从的危险》(The of Obedience, 1974年)中说,“我们面临的问题是,我们在实验室中为让人们掌权而创造的条件,如何与我们所痛惜的纳粹时代相关。
新西兰哲学assignment代写 危险的服从
Milgram stated in his article The Perils of Obedience (1974) that the legal and philosophical views of obedience are very significant, but they say little about the actions people take when confronted with practical situations. He designed this experiment at Yale university to test an ordinary citizen’s willingness to inflict much or little pain on another human being just because of the orders given by a scientist assisting the experiment. When the authority that led the experiment ordered the participant to harm another person, even more so than the screams of pain the participant had heard, the authority continued to order the participant most of the time, even though the participant was so morally disturbed. Experiments have shown how willing adults are to submit to almost any measure of power, and we must study and explain this phenomenon as soon as possible.The experiment itself has raised ethical questions about the science of the experiment, which puts extreme emotional pressure on participants. Although the experiment led to valuable discoveries in human psychology, many scientists today would consider such experiments unethical. A later survey found that 84% of the participants at the time said they felt “happy” or “very happy” to have taken part in the experiment, that 15% of the participants chose to be neutral (92% of the participants did the post-survey), and many of them later thanked Milgram. And Milgram kept getting calls from former participants who wanted to help him with his experiments again, or even to join his research team. However, the experience of the experiment did not change every participant for life. Many participants were not told the details based on modern experimental standards, and exit interviews showed that many participants still did not seem to understand what was going on. The main criticism of experiments is not the ethical controversy of their methods, but the significance they represent. A participant from Yale university in 1961 wrote in the magazine of the Jewish Currents: when he wanted to stop in the middle of as a “teacher”, is a suspect to “the whole experiment may be just designed, in order to test an ordinary americans will follow orders against conscience – like Germany during the Nazi period” and this is one of the purpose of the experiment. Milgram, in his book The Perils of Obedience (1974), said, “the question we face is how the conditions we create in the laboratory to bring people to power are related to the Nazi era that we deplored.