Introduction
There is a significant difference between ethics and law. Most societies develop laws and policies which to enforce moral principles. Actions can be two faceted, legal but unethical or illegal but ethical. For the purpose of interpreting law, ethical principles can be utilized, however in the last century, most of the socialists forced citizens to not follow the law in procession to which they believed as immoral and unethical (Dyer 1995).
Protests which are peaceful are a moral way of expressing views against political non justifications. Ethics can also be defined as a discipline that encompasses values, religion, decree, psychology, or sociology.
For instance someone who maintains ethical standards is termed as a medical ethicist. Ethics can be defined as a technique, formula, or viewpoint for the purpose of deciding actions and analyzing difficult problems and matters (Koocher and Keith-Spiegel 1998).
Therefore, in view of a difficult matter such as global warming, an individual may take a monetary, environmental, biased, or moral viewpoint on the crisis. On the other hand, an economist will inspect the price and advantages of many policies that are in conjunction to the issue of global warming, whereas an environmental ethicist will consider the values and principles of ethical nature which are at risk (Vendemiati 2004).
A History of the Construct of Obedience in Psychology
The idea of obedience is rooted in psychology and most of previous literature boasts of the positive impact of obedience in psychological research.
The idea was developed in the literature sought in the works of psychologist Theodule Ribot (1891), who asserted that obedience is rooted in the framework of determination, mentioning that “it is only through the will [that] one man gains an irresistible influence over others” and that “it is only a strong will that demands obedience” (p. 95). Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (1998), discussed obedience to be a result of implication or hypnosis, and tagged it as automatic obedience.
This term was a source to Milgram (1964) acknowledgement of the concept of obedience in this book. Thus, obedience can be seen to have multiple meanings in the filed of psychology and the work of Ribot (1891) and Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (1998) turn out to be the source of Milgram’s definition of obedience that is rooted in the intellectual history of the world of psychology.
Milgram studies obedience in a manner which dominates the current world and clarifies the research on obedience in totality (Banyard 2010). Most researchers agree that the concept could not be simulated today under the circumstances that Milgram engaged in particular the ethical guiding principle now in power. It is significant to distinguish that Milgram’s measures almost certainly did not infringe the study on ethics in the early part of 1960 (Milgram 1964).
Baumrind’s (1964) criticized that Milgram should have abandoned his study once he realized the degree of anguish resulting from his research, and certainly if we observe closely she was not wrong about it. But Milgram openly conveyed that the results he sought were not minor results and were of utmost importance, rather shocking (Banyard 2010).
It is not easy to consider any research being abandoned even though it has a capacity to create an impact on comprehending the human state, especially when they are believed to have debriefed the methods of dealing with the individual suffering of the subject being studied. The force of Milgram’s studies on obedience was more of an urgent and expressive psychological nature (Banyard 2010).
Kimmel (1998) stated that “The Milgram experiments ultimately may have less to say about destructive obedience’ than about ineffectual and indecisive disobedience” (p. 103), and this resulted in forcing many research programs to study the negative behaviors and actions rather than the positive ones.
After Milgram’s study of obedience, a more stringent code of conduct for carrying out researches was developed by the IRB. This caused a fast shift to studies that had inferior investigational practicality and higher unexciting pragmatism, more and more of which were carried out of the laboratory (Banyard 2010).
A History of the Construct of Attachment in Psychology
Harry Harlow conducted some renowned researches in the 1950s covering the deprivation of maternal care in rhesus monkeys. These proved to be the milestone not only in primatology, but also in the development of scientific aspects of attachment and loss (Custance 2010).
Harlow also treated his human subjects for the same deprivation and globally compared his experimental findings with concerns to love and growth of affection in human beings simultaneously. These experiments had strong impact on concepts such as separation, attachment, mothers and infants, adoption and childrearing generally (Vendemiati 2004).
The observations of Harlow’s experiments concerning bare wire mothers implicated that child love was not an easy retort to the fulfillment of physiological requirements of an individual. Attachment does not only require fulfillment of hunger or thirst in individuals and therefore cannot be concentrated to nursing only (Custance 2010).
Modifications in Harlow experiments allowed him to make another observation. He removed the choice of mothers and allowed the infants to remain separated thus dividing them into two different groups. He observed that all rhesus’ consumed same amount of milk and physically developed at the same ratio. However, no similarities were seen after this observation.
Soft and tactile teddy cloth mothers were seen to be more preferable than the hard wired mothers. This led him to deduce a hypothesis that emotional and psychological attachment which was not present in the second group was an important feature. This led them to grow at a slow rate or not develop at all (Vendemiati 2004).
Later on, his experiments proved that sooner or later, monkeys required some sort of attachment which was necessary for their growth. Permanent damage was seen in monkeys which were deprived and kept in isolation for a couple of months (Kimmel 1998). This deprivation was subjected to human beings and was seen to have lasted for over six months before signs of any damage were seen, whereas in monkeys this deprivation lasted for no more than 90 days before permanent damage could be seen (Custance 2010).
Other researchers who carried out research on attachment such as Mary Ainsworth also concluded that comfort and security were elements required for any infant to grow properly. Harlow’s experiments were a vital proof of the fact that love and affection are the foundations of growth and development and deprivation can only lead to devastation sooner or later and sometimes can even lead to death (Kimmel 1998).
Harlow’s work was a great influence on researches led by Bowlby and Ainsworth, who further helped develop proper ethical guidelines for services such as “orphanages, adoption agencies, social services groups and child care providers who approached utter care of children” (Dyer 1995).
A History of the Construct of Memory in Psychology
The earlier period of eyewitness memory research has been distinguished by dispute and a development of process (Koocher and Keith-Spiegel 1998). During the past number of years, the argument over the environmental soundness of the research has taken a greater focus, as was evident in the early researches in the same century.
The present account of this argument centers on the association among the memory as it functions in labs and other various other contexts of memory (Baumrind 1964). Some have disputed that remembrance and memory is best researched and analyzed in a laboratory environment where utmost power and accuracy are likely.
Although there are many issues related to this dispute, one evident issue is the incapability to create various conditions in the laboratory. For instance, for the sake of evident ethical reasoning, powerful poignant reactions or great levels of distress cannot be stimulated in laboratories.
Researchers covering the association among emotions stress and memory must, do so outside the lab environment in places where reactions can be evident (Dyer 1995).
When it comes to psychology, researching cognition is similar to dealing with experiences and facts, which can include insight, concentration, remembrance, philosophy and speech that are not evident and do not become part of experimental observations directly (Ribot 1891).
The association among loss of psychological function and deterioration of any part of the brain is unswervingly and exclusively accountable for performing that function (Pike and Brace 2010). Only with the advent of latest techniques such as brain imaging and so on, has it been likely to achieve a more precise understanding of the multifaceted character of the association between the brain and cognition (Vendemiati 2004).
Memory is deficient. That is why we usually tend not to see things which are accurate firstly. However, even if we try to retain a reasonable amount of information coming from an experience, it does not mandatorily retain in our memory tactfully (Vendemiati 2004).
The best example of this can be at our workplace. With the passage of time, and with proper willingness to do something we learn to perform a certain task. However, there are distorting elements that allow us to forget the facts and undergo a certain loss of memory. Even in the majority gifted among us is memory thus impressionable (Pike and Brace 2010).
Conclusion
Most of the dissimilar orders, establishments, and vocations have various rules for performance that ensemble their meticulous aims and objectives. These usually help members of the restraint to synchronize their proceedings or actions and to set up the public’s conviction of the authority.
For example, ethical norms rule behavior in fields of law, business, management and engineering. Above all they are seen to play an important role in the field of medicine. Ethical norms also act as research objectives and relate to people who perform methodical exploration of academic or imaginative actions.
List of References
Banyard, P., 2010. Just following orders? In Brace, N. and Byford, J. Discovering Psychology. Milton Keynes, The Open University. Ch. 2.
Baumrind, D., 1964. Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s, Behavioral Study of Obedience. American Psychologist, 19(6), pp.421-23.
Brace, N. and Byford, J., 2010. Discovering Psychology. Milton Keynes, The Open University.
Custance, D., 2010. Determined to Love? In Brace, N. and Byford, J. Discovering Psychology. Milton Keynes, The Open University. Ch. 5.
Dyer, C., 1995. Beginning research in Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Kimmel, A.J.a.P.E., 1998. Ethics and values in appled social research. In Nunn, J. Laboratory Psychology. East Sussexx: Psychology Press Ltd.
Koocher, G.P. and Keith-Spiegel, P., 1998. Ethics in Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
Milgram, S., 1964. Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, p.848–852.
Pike, G. and Brace, N., 2010. Wtinessing and Remembering. In Brace, N. and Byford, J. Discovering Psychology. Milton Keynes, The Open University. Ch. 9.
Ribot, T., 1891. Heredity: A psychological study of its phenomena, laws, causes, and consequences. New York, NY: D Appleton and Company.
Vendemiati, A., 2004. In the First Person, An Outline of General Ethics. Rome: Urbaniana University Press.