With newer frameworks like "Moral Injury," Milgram's argument that there was no harm done to participants in his obedience experiments can indeed be strongly challenged.
Here's why:
Definition of Moral Injury: Moral injury refers to the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of events that involve a betrayal or transgression of one's own deeply held moral beliefs and values, especially in high-stakes situations. It's not a formal mental health disorder like PTSD, but it can be associated with conditions like PTSD and depression. Key aspects often include feelings of guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and a loss of trust in oneself or others.
Milgram's Experiment and Moral Transgression: In Milgram's experiment, participants were led to believe they were administering increasingly severe and painful electric shocks to another human being (the "learner"). Many participants experienced extreme distress, sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter, and even seizures, as they struggled with the conflict between their conscience (not wanting to harm another person) and the authority figure's instructions to continue. They were, in essence, compelled to act against their fundamental moral imperative not to inflict harm.
The "No Harm" Argument vs. Moral Injury: Milgram's defense largely rested on the fact that no physical harm was done and that, through debriefing, participants were informed of the deception and that the "learner" was unharmed. He believed this effectively restored their well-being. However, the concept of moral injury suggests that the harm goes beyond physical injury or even simply feeling distressed in the moment. The act of believing they were inflicting severe pain, even if it was a deception, could constitute a profound moral transgression for the participants.
Lingering Psychological Impact: Even if participants were "debriefed," the experience of having seemingly acted against their deepest moral compass could have left a lasting impact. The feelings of guilt, shame, or a questioning of their own character for obeying orders to harm someone, even under duress, could persist. This is precisely what moral injury addresses: the internal wound that occurs when one's moral compass is violated.
Betrayal and Trust: The deception itself could also contribute to moral injury, as participants were misled by an authority figure (the researcher) in a context where they expected ethical conduct. This betrayal of trust, both in the experimenter and potentially in the institution of science, could further exacerbate feelings of moral distress.
Beyond "Distress": While Baumrind pointed out the severe distress experienced, moral injury offers a more nuanced framework to understand the specific type of psychological wound. It's not just general anxiety; it's the specific pain of having acted in a way that conflicts with one's core values.
In conclusion, while Milgram maintained there was no lasting harm due to the debriefing, the framework of moral injury provides a strong counter-argument. The psychological toll of believing one has inflicted harm, even if the harm was simulated, can be profound and enduring, impacting an individual's sense of self and their moral integrity. This ongoing debate highlights the critical importance of ethical considerations in research and the lasting legacy of Milgram's controversial experiments.
Thank you so much for this insightful and thought-provoking feedback.
You're absolutely right to highlight the relevance of the moral injury framework in re-evaluating Milgram’s claim that no lasting harm was done. The concept adds vital nuance to how we think about the psychological toll of participating in such experiments, especially when those experiences involve acting against deeply held values under pressure from authority.
Milgram’s emphasis on debriefing and the absence of physical harm, while aligned with the standards of his time, does seem insufficient when viewed through a modern lens. As you point out, the emotional and ethical conflict participants endured (the belief that they were causing real pain) can lead to profound internal distress that isn’t necessarily alleviated by a post-experiment explanation. The symptoms many displayed during the study suggest more than momentary discomfort; they reflect exactly the kind of rupture between action and conscience that moral injury seeks to describe.
Your point about betrayal is especially powerful. The erosion of trust (not just in the researcher but potentially in one’s own judgment) can have lasting implications. This really underscores the need for continued reflection on how we define "harm" in psychological research and how ethical safeguards must evolve alongside our understanding of the human psyche.
Thanks again for taking the time to offer such a considered response. It’s exactly the kind of meaningful dialogue that enriches the field - and the newsletter.
With newer frameworks like "Moral Injury," Milgram's argument that there was no harm done to participants in his obedience experiments can indeed be strongly challenged.
Here's why:
Definition of Moral Injury: Moral injury refers to the psychological, social, and spiritual impact of events that involve a betrayal or transgression of one's own deeply held moral beliefs and values, especially in high-stakes situations. It's not a formal mental health disorder like PTSD, but it can be associated with conditions like PTSD and depression. Key aspects often include feelings of guilt, shame, anger, disgust, and a loss of trust in oneself or others.
Milgram's Experiment and Moral Transgression: In Milgram's experiment, participants were led to believe they were administering increasingly severe and painful electric shocks to another human being (the "learner"). Many participants experienced extreme distress, sweating, trembling, stuttering, nervous laughter, and even seizures, as they struggled with the conflict between their conscience (not wanting to harm another person) and the authority figure's instructions to continue. They were, in essence, compelled to act against their fundamental moral imperative not to inflict harm.
The "No Harm" Argument vs. Moral Injury: Milgram's defense largely rested on the fact that no physical harm was done and that, through debriefing, participants were informed of the deception and that the "learner" was unharmed. He believed this effectively restored their well-being. However, the concept of moral injury suggests that the harm goes beyond physical injury or even simply feeling distressed in the moment. The act of believing they were inflicting severe pain, even if it was a deception, could constitute a profound moral transgression for the participants.
Lingering Psychological Impact: Even if participants were "debriefed," the experience of having seemingly acted against their deepest moral compass could have left a lasting impact. The feelings of guilt, shame, or a questioning of their own character for obeying orders to harm someone, even under duress, could persist. This is precisely what moral injury addresses: the internal wound that occurs when one's moral compass is violated.
Betrayal and Trust: The deception itself could also contribute to moral injury, as participants were misled by an authority figure (the researcher) in a context where they expected ethical conduct. This betrayal of trust, both in the experimenter and potentially in the institution of science, could further exacerbate feelings of moral distress.
Beyond "Distress": While Baumrind pointed out the severe distress experienced, moral injury offers a more nuanced framework to understand the specific type of psychological wound. It's not just general anxiety; it's the specific pain of having acted in a way that conflicts with one's core values.
In conclusion, while Milgram maintained there was no lasting harm due to the debriefing, the framework of moral injury provides a strong counter-argument. The psychological toll of believing one has inflicted harm, even if the harm was simulated, can be profound and enduring, impacting an individual's sense of self and their moral integrity. This ongoing debate highlights the critical importance of ethical considerations in research and the lasting legacy of Milgram's controversial experiments.
Thank you so much for this insightful and thought-provoking feedback.
You're absolutely right to highlight the relevance of the moral injury framework in re-evaluating Milgram’s claim that no lasting harm was done. The concept adds vital nuance to how we think about the psychological toll of participating in such experiments, especially when those experiences involve acting against deeply held values under pressure from authority.
Milgram’s emphasis on debriefing and the absence of physical harm, while aligned with the standards of his time, does seem insufficient when viewed through a modern lens. As you point out, the emotional and ethical conflict participants endured (the belief that they were causing real pain) can lead to profound internal distress that isn’t necessarily alleviated by a post-experiment explanation. The symptoms many displayed during the study suggest more than momentary discomfort; they reflect exactly the kind of rupture between action and conscience that moral injury seeks to describe.
Your point about betrayal is especially powerful. The erosion of trust (not just in the researcher but potentially in one’s own judgment) can have lasting implications. This really underscores the need for continued reflection on how we define "harm" in psychological research and how ethical safeguards must evolve alongside our understanding of the human psyche.
Thanks again for taking the time to offer such a considered response. It’s exactly the kind of meaningful dialogue that enriches the field - and the newsletter.
Cheers,
David
You’re welcome.