Was Zimbardo Justified In The Stanford Prison Experiment

There are many variables that affect why people react the way they do. Henry David Thoreau states, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right.” Although a person’s human instinct is to do what is right, it is not always fair. Thoreau’s theory shows in the famous “Stanford Prison Experiment.” The “Stanford Prison Experiment, performed by Philip Zimbardo, showed how test subjects think and react. The subjects who were guards learned how to be authoritative, within reason, and in the prisoner's case, the respective inmate. It concluded that people are often unable to resist authority. Thoreau insists that one should not always be obligated to follow the law, because it can be wrong, or immoral. He is justified in saying this, but it is not always the right thing to do.

Students from Stanford University signed up to become guards and prisoners for one-two weeks for $15 per day. None of the subjects who were guards were going to receive training on their role prior to the experiment. However, they still managed to receive the full prison experience. Zimbardo attempted to recreate elements of a typical prison.

In the start of the experiment, nothing was being executed. Zimbardo was expecting to have to shut it down because there was no purpose in doing it. However, a guard mindlessly took the first small step by stirring up trouble between the guards and prisoners. This began the revolution of blind obedience to authority. The guards were blindly obeying Zimbardo while the prisoners were obeying the guards and Zimbardo. Zimbardo continued the experiment, while sitting back and watching what would happen next. The experiment’s purpose was to see human’s responses to captivity in a prison-life