Theodore Dalrymple’s “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You,” emphasizes the relationship between human tendency to anarchy and authority to Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment. Dalrymple’s interpretations surrounding behavior rested mainly on obedience and how clever manipulations could influence behavioral outcome. Within the text, Dalrymple links four main roles of authority, including a pilot, a doctor, a teacher, and a security guard. These roles are then utilized by Dalrymple to explain how blind obedience, and blind disobedience to authority are not to be encouraged unproportionally. While both obedience and disobedience have their separate dangers, it is the rate at which either one is adopted that distinguishes and defines oneself. …show more content…
A balance between these separate dangers reveals that actions of blind disobedience aimed towards authority are dependant on the behavior or actions demanded. The value of disobedience to authority is dependent on the behavior requested, as well as the quality of the objective presented.
Dalrymple’s inclusion of the Pilot’s obedience of authority possesses value through the necessity of authority. The pilot’s obedience to authority rests on multiple factors, including his morality, integrity, safety, mental risk versus reward system, respect for those he is impacted by, and how every factor impacts himself. In fact, the obedience exemplified by the pilot strands past the role of authority and risks of sole disobedience. His actions depend, “...on the nature of the orders given or the behavior demanded…’Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living…”(Dalrymple,121). A response to authority in this case at its most basic level would be reliant on orders to obey all laws and expectations of a professional pilot to ensure the safety of those in the plane, as well as in its path. The system and hierarchy of authority for the pilot passes from the cockpit, to the airports, past official offices, and then to major corporations. Disobedience to authority above or below the pilot would throw the balance off between the dangers of obedience and disobedience. In this case, the system of authority surrounding the pilot would stand as a requirement of communal
living. Obedience to an authority figure such as a doctor is dependant on a balance of dangers. Past power, the judgements made by doctors are dependent on the actions required to properly treat a patient. A balance of obedience and disobedience in this case is all factored by who is below and above the doctor. As a young physician, Dalrymple often disagreed with his superior's methods of unnecessary treatment for her patients. Irrelevant tests were performed within the last few days of a patient's life, yet Dalrymple obeyed his orders and proclaimed that, “...the interests of patients were served by existence of a hierarchy among doctors”(Dalrymple,121). Although Dalrymple questioned the orders that he soon adhered to, he placed his inexperience and young age within the scale of dangers. In between defying a superior authority was the aim of accomplishing too much, and also achieving too little to address the patient’s issues. Dalrymple stated that disobeying the expectations of authority within this scenario would ultimately cause the system of hierarchy to fall apart. In order for a patient's needs to be served, there had to be a hierarchy among the doctors. Without this system, there is no safeguard for a doctor’s judgements. The balance of obedience to authority and disobedience based on the arguability of a doctor's treatments both remain necessary to address the actions and behaviors demanded in this occupation of authority.
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.
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).
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;
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
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
nature of man, how he operates in the cockpit, and what must be done by
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.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment shows societies that more people with abide by the rules of an authority figure under any circumstances rather than follow their own nature instinct. With the use of his well-organized article that appeals to the general public, direct quotes and real world example, Milgram’s idea is very well-supported. The results of the experiment were in Milgram’s favor and show that people are obedient to authority figures. Stanley Milgram shows the reader how big of an impact authority figures have but fails to answer the bigger question. Which is more important, obedience or morality?
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,
Comparative Analysis Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine). While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from escape and under control.
Obedience is a widely debated topic today with many different standpoints from various brilliant psychologists. Studying obedience is still important today to attempt to understand why atrocities like the Holocaust or the My Lai Massacre happened so society can learn from them and not repeat history. There are many factors that contribute to obedience including situation and authority. The film A Few Good Men, through a military court case, shows how anyone can fall under the influence of authority and become completely obedient to conform to the roles that they have been assigned. A Few Good Men demonstrates how authority figures can control others and influence them into persuading them to perform a task considered immoral or unethical.
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 experiences of real life. 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.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
Twenty One Pilots is a band originating in Columbus, Ohio, formed by two people, Tyler Joseph, singer, songwriter, and ukulele player, and Josh Dun, drummer. Although the band only has two people in it, they have hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world, selling out their most recent tour, Blurryface Tour, out in seconds. When blindly looking at Macbeth and Twenty One Pilots, one may not be able notice any similar traits considering the first is a play written in 1606, and the other is a band that originated in 2009; both are completely different in form and are from contrasting eras. Despite these differences, the well-known Shakespearean play, Macbeth, and the band, Twenty One Pilots, share similar messages involving manipulation, the need for power, and suicide.