In 1971, a group of psychologists led by Philip Zimbardo invited mentally healthy students from the USA and Canada, selected from 70 volunteers, to take part in the experiment. Then they were divided into two groups – “guards” and “prisoners”. Nine “prisoners” were locked in three cells, which were alternately guarded by nine “guards” equipped with uniforms and batons. In my opinion, despite the fact that the volunteers received monetary compensation for participating in the experiment, it was unethical for Zimbardo to allow the experiment to shift in the violent direction that he acquired over time. Those participants of the experiment who were “guards” were initially “forbidden to use violence” (Zimbardo 335). Therefore, it would be unethical to conduct an experiment because the conditions to which the participants agreed were different from those to which consent was voiced.
Moreover, I think that it was unethical for “Stanford County Prison” to put on such a “masquerade” for their visitors after such a dramatic “rebellion” the day before. This first thoughtless little step in the direction of evil led to a blurring of personal responsibility and a general passive non-resistance to evil. A new “prisoner” came to the prison and behaved unusually: he went on a hunger strike. By this time, the other “prisoners” were already emotionally broken. During the experiment, the experimenters themselves got used to the fact that “every day of insults and violence was the basis for the next one” (Zimbardo 415). In my opinion, the manifestation of moral violence, even in the name of science, is unethical. Therefore, I agree with the actions of Zimbardo’s spouse, who, having assessed what was happening, called on him to terminate the experiment early.
Work Cited
Zimbardo, Philip. The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House, 2007.