[theunknownamus]

I believe this to be quite the sobering satire of our widely sedated forum populace.
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/video?id=2769000

Here's the text version if the video won't load for you: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7article/article35.htm

Your goal is to deceiver and evaluate the experiment. What was your opinion of it? Do you find the experiment ethically sound? Could the experiment cause psychological trauma? Why do you think more people agreed to continue then stop? What would you have done?


My response

The experiment was most certainly a clever way to gauge the level of obedience, complacency, and compliance of an individual. The actions performed, emotions expressed, and decisions made by the Teacher(s) represented various aspects and definitions of their moral values.

Ethically, the experiment pounds upon a fault line of grey. While no actual harm is inflicted upon the actor, the Teacher could likely undergo a heavily traumatic, or sadistically enjoyable, psychological experience. One can hope that said traumatic or malicious glee would be nullified or inhibited upon revelation of the experiment's true nature, but this mitigating factor is not exhaustive.

With the ever growing pacified masses of our increasingly expanding police state, it does not surprise me that rebelling or rejecting the experimenter's instructions would fall under a minority of results. The Teachers likely continued with the experiment due to the fact they trusted the experimenters. Historically speaking, rebels are usually in a minority of society, as most people prefer to conform. It is easier to conform, to sacrifice freedom and liberty for safety and security. Most naturally want to follow a leader they believe is just, yet, of course there can be anarchists or those whom desire to have no leaders. Said people would likely continue the experiment out of their own free will or immediately stop upon too shocking of a response from the actor.