I don't think it was unethical, the eloctrocution was fake. (the responder was just a tape message right?) It's perhaps unsetelling for people's perspective on humanity, but I talked to lots of people who said they would have responded differently, so the ego always "corrects" reality anyway. I also like to think I would not have particepated, but I know this is just self-protecting morale, and there's no way of me finding out. :)
Just looked it up, didn't know that's what it was called. Ethical, since the shocks weren't real. But still raises some questions about how the unsuspecting who administered the shocks felt when they later contemplated just how inhumane they could be when given the power.
Since modern shrinks say that the disturbing experience that the subjects would have endured is unethical, I'd say it IS unethical by today's standards, but not WAS in the 60s.
Yes it was ethical, providing the debriefing was done well. The Stanford Prison thing was unethical. Ethics are relative though. Now that the Human Subjects Committee looks out for human guinea pigs, the unethical scientists have to conduct their deviant experiments on humans covertly [think secret laboratories in rural places].
Unethical. Anything that makes me cringe like that has to be wrong.
Well...no one was physically harmed, though some people may have experience psychological duress. How else are you suppose to find out how far they would go under pressure of authority?
debriefing should have taken care of any personal guilt