Comparative Analysis The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior; …show more content…
As depicted in A Few Good Men, authors Fromm, Dalrymple, and Szegedy-Maszak provide evidence as to why blind obedience influences individuals’ motives, such as fear and trust, to examine how unjust authority pollutes a person’s ability to …show more content…
Downey’s reliance on Dawson exploits his readiness to blindly obey superiors’ orders due to Downey’s incapability to compose a rational decision for himself. Fromm logically analyzes the way in which the characteristic of trust influences a person’s actions when unjust orders are demanded of them (Fromm 127). Moreover, Fromm discusses his belief that in order for one to disobey, one must possess the boldness to individually err from what is demanded; however, boldness is a quality that Downey appears to lack (127). Utilizing personal examples, Fromm’s work also displays how Downey’s trust stems from the sensation of safety provided by Dawson. Dawson is perceived as a role model to Downey, which Fromm would effectively support due to his idea that a dependent individual feels “safe and protected” under an authority, even though Dawson’s commands are unjust (Fromm 127). Psychologist Stanley C. Loewen would agree with Fromm by fairly examining the negative aspects that unjust role models present to their loyal followers. Loewen believes the issue with role models is “one ends up losing their own sense of self and their own identity” due to their submissive trust to a superior (Loewen). Similarly, Dalrymple would likely coincide with Fromm’s ideas that Downey’s blind
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
This is greatly frowned upon where in the military respecting a higher officer is strongly enforced. The disrespect and lack of obedience in this situation is logically an effect of Kaffee’s self-entitlement. Milgram may explain Kaffee’s entitlement from a review of his own experiment. He can argue that the subjects in his experiment were established with a sense of entitlement when they are briefed that the success of the experiment depends on them and their choices (Milgram 78). Milgram would connect his subjects with Kaffee by effectively explaining when Kaffee is confronted about his father and in result praised for having such a great man as his father, he takes this as praise of himself from coming from such a family. Logically he adds self-importance to himself resulting in entitlement. In support of Milgram’s claim, the article of “Entitlement Predicts Sexism,” collaborated by Case Western Reserve University, would add the addition of the connection between sexism and entitlement. Studies mentioned by the article would support the opinion that Kaffee not only felt entitled above her but felt as a man he was not required to show her respect (Entitlement Predicts Sexism). Ross and Nisbett, authors of “The Power of Situations,” state that people tend to place more value on the personal traits of a person rather than giving consideration to the
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with a real world example to make his article as effective as possible.
Fromm explains that humans obey orders because of “fear, hate, and greed”, which, in the end, harms humanity (Fromm 125). Agreeing with this idea, Zimbardo states that “self-aggrandizement” is accomplished by “self-deprecation” of others (Zimbardo 109). Christopher Shea’s experiment also backs up the claim that people act for themselves. Shea would concur with Fromm that humans behave greedily (Shea). In contrast, Shea would not believe that people behave to put others down, which is Zimbardo’s beliefs (Shea). Jessup wished to express his authority by giving orders and allowing himself to advance even higher. Jessup harmed Santiago to advance personally; in addition, Dawson and Downey obeyed orders to gain approval from Jessup. Fromm may argue that Dawson and Downey followed commands due to fear. Zimbardo would believe that they thought completing the order was the correct action to be taken. The article “Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity” also connects with Zimbardo’s viewpoint. The article explains why people become passive and eventually deem their actions as correct (Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity). Zimbardo would not consider humans to be passive just blind to the truth. “Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity” would reply that individuals need to rely on their mind and not listen to commands. Both authors believe the marines’ actions
Obedience has always been a trait present in every aspect of society. Parents have practiced enforcing discipline in their homes where children learn obedience from age one. Instructors have found it difficult to teach a lesson unless their students submit to their authority. Even after the adolescent years, law enforcement officers and governmental officials have expected citizens to uphold the law and abide by the standards set in society. Few will understand, however, that although these requirements for obedience provide positive results for development, there are also dangers to enforcing this important trait. Obedience to authority can be either profitable or perilous depending on who the individual in command is. In the film, The Crucible,
Therefore, making one decision can have a huge impact on others. This is why it is important to think of the consequences that could occur before you make any decision. Both the soldier and Ronnie face challenges to make the decision whether they should be loyal to their leader or friend, or whether they should do the opposite. They later regret the decision they make and face the consequences that come along with it. Ronnie goes through an emotional state from lying to the sergeant, and the soldier feels guilty for killing Gregory. This is why you should think of others before you make any decision, and be loyal to those who you trust and think are right.
Carolyn Forche’s “The Colonel” discusses the lack of value towards human life by totalitarian government and the United States’ stake in investigating these powers and challenging them. The speaker in this poem recounts his experience meeting the colonel to show the audience both the amount of presence of the United States in this foreign setting and the Colonel’s lack of regard toward human rights. Figurative language, such as similes, metaphors, and symbols, as well as the speaker’s first-person point of view descriptions reveal her experiences in El Salvador with a cruel military government. These elements in Forche’s poem successfully convey themes of oppression and cruelty, as well as heavy
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
Dalrymple starts his essay by stating that some people view opposition to authority to be principled and also romantic (254). The social worker Dalrymple mentions on the airplane with him is a prime example that certain people can be naturally against authority, but she quickly grants authority to the pilot to fly the plane (255). Dalrymple also mentions his studies under a physician and that Dalrymple would listen to her because she had far greater expanse of knowledge than him (256). Ian Parker writes his essay explaining the failed logic with Stanley Milgram’s experiment and expounds on other aspects of the experiment. One of his points is the situation’s location which he describes as inescapable (238). Another focus of Parker’s article is how Milgram’s experiment affected his career; the experiment played a role in Milgram’s inability to acquire full support from Harvard professors to earn tenure (234).
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Human factors embrace all the factors that can affects people and their actions. They are the personal skills and social skills, for example, decision making and communication which focus on the technical skills. These are crucial for efficient and safe aviation. The study of human factors relates referring scientific knowledge about our human body and human mind to help us understand human limitations and capabilities. The purpose of human factors knowledge is to help us reduce the probability of errors and to increase error tolerant and more resilient methods. (Systems and Factors, 2016)