Was Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment an ethical or unethical experiment?

With all the current talk of psychology being “crazy” and experiments being too dangerous, I’m going to inform you of Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment and give you a window into how dangerous experiments were before the APA psychology codes were introduced. My question for the topic of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment if it was more unethical than Milgrim’s experiment, and throughout the entirety of this blog I will be supporting that it was more unethical. First of all, the <a href="http://www.prisonexp.org/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Stanford Prison Experiment</a> was an experiment by Philip Zimbardo in 1971, which would involve a group of twenty-four males being put into a pseudo-prison to see the effects of prison on the guards and prisoners. By the flip of a coin, twelve of these volunteered males would be chosen as prisoners and the other twelve volunteers as guards. As expected, the prisoners suffered great torment and several of the them had mental breakdowns where they were crying, yelling, screaming, curling up, etc. The guards, however, were consumed in their own power and felt little compassion for the people that were below them in power and stripped them, flogged them, dehumanized them, and more. The experiment was intended to last for two weeks, or fourteen days, but only lasted for six days because of the severe effects the prisoners were experiencing; i.e. depression, anxiety and stress. <a href="https://medium.com/@ERB10559/was-zimbardo-s-stanford-prison-experiment-an-ethical-or-unethical-experiment-1225211e5d0d">Read More</a>