Would you harm another person against your better judgment just because someone in authority told you to? Stanley Milgam's obedience experiment was unique in that he wanted to find out if there was a link between obedience to authority and Nazi Germany by conducting an experiment that required shocking someone else because he was told to. The experiment, while slightly extreme, was effective despite what some might think in determining how someone reacts when given orders from an authority in a stressful situation. It is argued that his methods were unethical, that he should not have deceived the subjects, that he inflicted harm on the subjects and did not do sufficient follow-up, that his overall design was flawed, and that the reasons for the experiment were not correct. do not apply to real world situations; however, this is simply not the case because Milgram's study was both effective and ethical for what it was trying to accomplish. For this experiment to be successful, the participants had to be deceived. If Milgram had explained the experiment to them earlier, the results would have been very different. It is likely that the subject would not have taken the authorities seriously if they had known. When the authority said things like “It is absolutely essential that we continue” (Milgram, Perils, 63) “You have no other choice” (Milgram, Perils, 64) the subject may not find them intimidating because they knew their obedience was what was being put to the test. Some may think they have to prove they have free will and can resist because they are the subject of the experiment, but if they didn't know what the goal was, they may not have that ability. If anyone knew the purpose of the experiment... middle of the paper... whether or not harm was inflicted, whether they paid enough attention, the location of the experiment, the deception and challenge that their study did not it applied to real-world problems. Even though her study was questioned by Baumrind, he still maintained his position and in a very direct and polite manner in addressing all the points she criticized. Without this study we might have continued to believe that some people we consider "evil" or "psychotic killers" may actually be the direct result of obedience. Work Cited Baumrind, Diana. “Some thoughts on research ethics: After reading Milgram's “behavioral obedience study.” American Psychologist (1964): 421-23. Print.Milgram, Stanley. “Problems in the Study of Obedience: A Response to Baumrind.” American Psychologist 19 (1964): 848-52. Print.Milgram, Stanley. “The dangers of obedience”. Harper's Magazine (1973): 62-77. Press.