3. Should key events in the historical development of human sciences always be judged by the standards of their time?  

To determine whether key events in the historical development of human sciences should always be judged by the standards of their time, we must first break down the concept of human sciences and its importance to human development and research. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, human sciences is a branch of study that deals with people or their actions, including the social sciences and the humanities, as contrasted with the natural sciences or physical sciences. Human science involves many disciplines, such as psychology, sociology, economics, politics, etc. Throughout history, human sciences have seen a major development through experiments, findings, observations, correlation studies, and etc. Although key events in the history of human sciences may show the ethical beliefs of their time, they should ultimately be evaluated based on modern moral standards because human rights and ethical issues are timeless.

Historically, the development of rules, regulations, laws, etc, has greatly evolved. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Brown, 2023). Additionally, in 1959, the General Assembly of the UN also adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which describes 10 principles (humanium, (n.d.)). Before these laws were adopted, there were no formal legal laws to address the violation of human rights; therefore, no legal consequences were faced. A significant example of human rights violations prior to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 is the practice of slavery, especially during the transatlantic slave trade. From the 16th to the 19th centuries, millions of Africans were forcibly removed from their homes, faced brutal and inhumane transport conditions, and were sold into slavery in the Americas and other regions. This practice denied individuals their basic human rights, treating them as objects rather than human beings (Smith, 2020). Although the those responsible did not face any legal consequences, would such a horrifying act be considered ethical? Would it be considered morally correct? These questions lead us to the thought that not all actions can be judged based on the standards of their time but on the ethical value and moral validity.

Morals and ethics are believed to be natural parts of being human, shaped by our biology and social interactions. For example, evidence in psychological research shows that even babies as young as six months can recognize unfairness and react negatively when resources are not shared equally (Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007). Neuroscience also reveals that certain areas of the brain, like the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, are active when we make moral decisions, indicating that our ability to reason about right and wrong has a biological foundation (Greene & Haidt, 2002). 

In the field of human sciences, the monster study is considered a good example to examine the standards of time throughout the history of development in human sciences. The study was conducted in 1939 (prior to the adoption of the decleaetion of human rights) and involved 22 orphaned children that were told they would be receiving speech therapy, but in reality became subjects in a stuttering experiment; only about half were actually stutterers, and none received speech therapy (Trimarchi, 2024). The purpose of the experiment was to prove Johnson's theory, indicating that the experiment was not nessecary. The impact of the experiment on the third group (children that were told they were stuttering but spoke properly) is that despite never actually developing a stutter, began to change their behavior, exhibiting low self-esteem and adopting the self-conscious behaviors associated with stutterers (Trimarchi, 2024). Therefore, the experiment was considered unethical and was hidden from the public and was only released many years after, because it was non-consensual and affected the self-esteem and speaking abilities of orphaned kids with the aim of proving a certain theory. The main reason Johnson conducted the experiment was because he saw an opportunity to exploit this vulnerable group of children (orphans) as they did not have any legal biological guardians to care for them and protect them, therefore taking advantage of their vulnerability. Which poses ethical concerns when non consequencial oppurtinites arise. The fact that they hid it to the public shows that they were aware of the ethical and moral concers regarding their experiment. 


While it's important to evaluate historical events in human sciences using today's ethical standards, some argue that this perspective can overlook the valuable contributions these experiments made to our understanding of human behavior. A good example is the Milgram experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s. This study aimed to examine obedience to authority by having participants administer electric shocks to others when instructed by an experimenter (Milgram, 1963). At that time, the experiment provided deep insights into how far individuals would go to follow orders, even when those orders contradicted their personal morals. Although many criticize the experiment today for lacking informed consent and causing psychological stress to the participants, it is also seen as important evidence in understanding authority (Blass, 2004). If we only judge the experiment by modern ethical standards, we may overlook the historical context that highlighted the need to understand human behavior after World War II and the Holocaust. The knowledge gained from the Milgram experiment has had lasting effects on psychology, ethical research practices, and discussions about human rights and authority (Perry, 2013). This shows that while we need to hold researchers accountable for ethical standards, we should also recognize the significant insights gained from these studies in shaping the field of human sciences.



write a conclusion for this showing that experiments should not always be judged based on the standards of their time in human sciences