In 1971, a psychologist and professor at Stanford University named Philip Zimbardo, together with his colleagues conducted an experiment entitled the Stanford prison experiment, which was an extension to the research called “the Lucifer effect” he was conducting. Zimbardo research involved trying to answer the question of what happens when you put good people in an evil place. And does humanity win over evil or does evil prevails? Zimbardo therefore conducted the Stanford prison experiment to observe the effects prison can have on human behavior. He wanted to find out “whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards (i.e. dispositional) or had more to do with the prison environment …show more content…
CNN (2016) stated that on that date, "CBS News" broadcasted the first ugly photographs of abuses by American soldiers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. Abu Ghraib prison was a U.S. Army detention center for captured Iraqis from 2003 to 2006, where detainees placed in cell blocks 1A and 1B were considered to be high valued. The pictures were taken by U.S. Army military police soldiers assigned to the prison and was made public to the world. These pictures reveiled the dehumanizing conditions and human rights violations in which US military soilders imposed upon detaintees all of whom were vaugely and rightly charged of a crime. Detainees suffered violations of physical and sexual abuse, rape, torture, sodomy and even murderat the hands of US soilders, not only as a means of trying to obtain intelligence about the enermy but also as the dispositions of …show more content…
The Standford Prison Experiment and the Abu Ghraib Prision are both similular in a situational context in which both presented the scenario of having the authority figures being the guards and the subordinate being the prisioners/detainees. In both prision is was seen that it was the “situation” that lead the guards within each prision to use they authority and dispositions to control criminals. Proving to Zimbardo that powerful situational forces could over-ride individual dispositions and choices and can result in good people doing bad things. “The terrible things my guards [at Stanford] did to their prisoners were comparable to the horrors inflicted on the Iraqi detainees. My guards repeatedly stripped their prisoners naked, hooded them, chained them, denied them food or bedding privileges, put them into solitary confinement, and made them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands.” (“Abuse and Authority - The Abu Ghraib Comparison,” 2015). In both of these situations, the guards working at the facilities were not trained in managing prisons or prisoners.The difference noted was that although the guards of the prison experiment had no reason to fear the prisoners, the guards at Abu Ghraib constantly feared of attacks due to them being outnumbered by prisoners and being in the middle of a war
2016). Using this ethical framework to argue against torture, one needs to consider the violation of the terrorist’s rights. Utilitarians argue that under a scenario where thousands of people are in danger, the well-being of the larger community is more important than neglecting the rights of a single individual (Krauthammer 2005). The simple idea of taking away a person’s autonomy for the sake of others violates rights ethics. To comprehend the violation upon the victim’s rights, it is important to understand how torture feels, “Brian describes his body as having become an object… pain is the central reality; it dominates experience and expression (Wisnewski 2010, 81).”
Situational effects and personality come into conflict when discussing behavior. Personality is someone’s “usual pattern of behavior, feelings, and thoughts” (Twenge, 2017, p.20). It remains constant throughout different situations, but some situations can be stressful enough to make a person act out of character. The transition between a person’s normal personality and behavior to a more evil, sinister behavior fascinates a man named Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the infamous Zimbardo Prison Experiment, or Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE). Zimbardo is an American psychologist at Stanford University and the mastermind behind the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment (The Story).
"Erroneous Assumptions: Popular Belief in the Effectiveness of Torture Interrogation." Peace & Conflict 13.4 (2007): 429-435. Academic Search Complete. Web. 14 Feb. 2016.
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo set out to conduct an experiment to observe behavior as well as obedience. In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, many dispute whether it was obedience or merely conforming to their predesigned social roles of guards and prisoners that transpired throughout the experiment. Initially, the experiment was meant to test the roles people play in prison environment; Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards, disposition, or had more to do with the prison environment. This phenomenon has been arguably known to possibly influencing the catastrophic similarities which occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.The
The guards that did not agree personally to the torturing of prisoners, but obeyed anyway, were participating in the act of Submissive Obedience, because the conscience they obeyed was not their own. The guards actions can also be explained by Philip G. Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Experiment”. In Zimbardo’s experiment, many young men were given absolute power as guards over prisoners, much like the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. After given few directives and told to enforce the laws of the prison, the guards at the Stanford Prison took only 3 days to
While analyzing “The Torture Myth” and “The Case for Torture”, it is very clear to see the type of rhetorical appeals used to persuade the audience. Anne Applebaum, the writer of “The Torture Myth” --in context of the decision of electing a new Attorney General--would argue that torture is very seldomly effective, violates a person’s rights, and should be outlawed due to the irrational need upon which physical torture is used. On the other hand, Michael Levin strongly argues that physical torture is crucial to solving every imminent danger to civilians. Levin claims that if you don’t physically torture someone, you are being weak and want to allow innocent people to die over something that could have been simply done.
Since the beginning of the human existence, man has always dominated and ruled over one another be it empires, corporations, or small groups. Authority and obedience has always been a factor of who we are. This natural occurrence can be seen clearly through the psychological experiments known as The Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment. Both of these studies are based on how human beings react to authority figures and what their obedience is when faced with conflict.
Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo questioned, “What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?” (Zimbardo, 1971) In 1971 a psychologist named Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment on the effects prison has on young males with the help of his colleague Stanley Milgram. They wanted to find out if the reports of brutality from guards was due to the way guards treated prisoners or the prison environment.
In Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture”, he uses many cases of emotional appeal to persuade the reader that torture is necessary in extreme cases. There are many terms/statements that stick with the reader throughout the essay so that they will have more attachment to what is being said. Levin is particularly leaning to an audience based in the United States because he uses an allusion to reference an event that happened within the states and will better relate to the people that were impacted by it. The emotional appeals used in this essay are used for the purpose of persuading the reader to agree that in extreme instances torture is necessary and the United States should begin considering it as a tactic for future cases of extremity. One major eye catching factor of this essay is the repetitive use of words that imply certain stigmas.
The participants of the Stanford Prison experiment were healthy young men who were promised a nominal fee for their services. These participants were blindfolded and assumed the role of prisoner or guard in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford University. Prisoners were stripped, chained, belittled and humiliated by the guards.
In Michael Levin's The Case for Torture, Levin provides an argument in which he discusses the significance of inflicting torture to perpetrators as a way of punishment. In his argument, he dispenses a critical approach into what he believes justifies torture in certain situations. Torture is assumed to be banned in our culture and the thought of it takes society back to the brutal ages. He argues that societies that are enlightened reject torture and the authoritative figure that engage in its application risk the displeasure of the United States. In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism.
Stanford Experiment: Unethical or Not Stanford Prison Experiment is a popular experiment among social science researchers. In 1973, a psychologist named Dr. Philip Zimbardo wants to find out what are the factors that cause reported brutalities among guards in American prisons. His aim was to know whether those reported brutalities were because of the personalities of the guards or the prison environment. However, during the experiment, things get muddled unexpectedly. The experiment became controversial since it violates some ethical standards while doing the research.
This is similar to our CIA society today, For torture to happened it can not happen on U.S soil. It must happen some place else.
Unit 1 Written Assignment Literature Review of article on Standard Prison Experiment Introduction This article concerns the Stanford Prison experiment carried out in 1971 at Stanford University. The experiment commenced on August 14, and was stopped after only six days. It is one of the most noted psychological experiments on authority versus subordinates. The studies which emerged from this have been of interest to those in prison and military fields due to its focus on the psychology associated with authority.
Normal People Behaving Evil The Stanford Prison Experiment was an experiment to see if normal people would change their behavior in a role-play as a prisoner or a prison guard. The experiment was conducted by Dr.Philip Zimbardo in 1973 at Stanford University that caused numerous amount of trauma to prisoners by prison guards in their role-playing position which forced Dr. Zimbardo to officially terminate the experiment six days after it was introduced. Due to the cruel aggressive behaviors from the guards, the experiment led to a question, "Do "normal" people have the capability of behaving badly?" The answer to that question is that most likely an individual who behave normally will have the capability of expressing evil behavior due to the environment that they are surrounded.