DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**tigoCeree** · 03-21-2010, 07:36 PM

I wondering, since electric shock was not actually used in the experiment or on the TV show why do you say it was unethical?

the ethics of the experiment is highly debated, not because of the not-real electrical shocks but because of the very real emotional distress experienced by the study subjects. however, the majority of subjects said that although they did experience extreme emotional distress, they were happy to have participated. so i wouldn't agree that it is the "definition of unethical". in fact, in my scientific ethics class it was used as an example of "the gray zone". i would go with Tuskegee as the the definition of unethical scientific experimentation.

as far as the tv show goes, i think it is logical that there would be an increase in compliance because of a natural assumption that they couldn't really hurt people for a tv show, so it must be okay.

03-21-2010, 07:36 PM	#11
tigoCeree Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 459 Senior Member	I wondering, since electric shock was not actually used in the experiment or on the TV show why do you say it was unethical? the ethics of the experiment is highly debated, not because of the not-real electrical shocks but because of the very real emotional distress experienced by the study subjects. however, the majority of subjects said that although they did experience extreme emotional distress, they were happy to have participated. so i wouldn't agree that it is the "definition of unethical". in fact, in my scientific ethics class it was used as an example of "the gray zone". i would go with Tuskegee as the the definition of unethical scientific experimentation. as far as the tv show goes, i think it is logical that there would be an increase in compliance because of a natural assumption that they couldn't really hurt people for a tv show, so it must be okay.
	Quote