This research paper explores various aspects of one’s conscious experience to understand how psychological elements can contribute to a soldier’s obedience to immoral and unlawful orders that establish efficiency within the military. I will first address the principle of obedience to commands and the role of its’ function within the military bureaucracy. Secondly, I will examine how a soldier’s subjective experience can contribute to compliance to orders (Cockerham and Cohen, 1272). Thirdly I will review the elements that act as catalysts in the cultivation of obedient soldiers. Elements such as fear and social isolation limits autonomous thinking and resistance, acting to heighten obedience to authority (Cunha, Rego, and Clegg, 291). Furthermore, …show more content…
Central to the bureaucracy are the predisposition of subordinates to obey orders made by a superior and the ideology that the mandate is legitimate (Cockerham and Cohen, 1273). Although compliance to orders are voluntary, in the military organization obedience is a soldier’s responsibility (Ibid). The standard expectation of soldiers to conform to superiors’ directive is to enhance the efficiency of the military to complete goals (Cockerham and Cohen, 1275). When people are subjected to follow orders unquestionably, they may or may not withhold personal moral judgements. However, in the military, obedience define efficiency. To understand soldiers’ collective performance in achieving goals set out by authorities, the following research will highlight the psychological elements that contributes to obedience by exploring the subjective experience of soldiers, methods to cultivate and to maintain …show more content…
Post and Panis defined routinization as a condition that limits decision making and reduces opportunities for personal conflicts with moral questions suggesting that obedience can be trained (38). The authors observed in their studies that the establishment of routines increased people’s involvement in commands and decreased the consideration of implications, suggesting that repetitions of the same actions will cease response over time (Post and Panis, 39). Post and Panis argues that when soldiers become desensitized towards violence, opportunities to question morality when inflicting violence upon others become limited, allowing authorities to train obedience (39). Post and Panis also suggest that obedience can be maintained through positive reinforcements (34). Reinforcements increases and strengthens the likelihood for a desired response (Schacter et al., 279). The military bureaucracy functions as a system of reinforcement through promotions within the hierarchy of authority (Cockerham and Cohen, 1272). Promotions act as reinforcements by increasing the likelihood of obedience to commands. Post and Panis rationalized that higher ranking soldiers are more willingly to comply to immoral and illegal commands because they have been reinforced to obey orders in all circumstances. Post and Panis’ study is in agreement with my
A social institution can shape individual behaviors because it can get someone used to having their life controlled daily. If someone’s actions are controlled and limited daily, they will get used to it and will seek to continue being controlled. For example, if one is used to receiving orders they will continue following through with the orders because that is what they were trained to do. In the article, “Anybody’s Son Will Do”, Dyer describes ways total institutions shape individual behaviors by explaining the method marines use to recruit new soldiers for war. When joining the marines, the methods marines use to shape the behavior of civilians begins at Parris Island when the civilians are intentionally picked up late in the day to ensure that when they arrive at Parris Island, they are tired enough to receive shock treatment.
The mannerisms, attitudes, and background of the American and British soldiers contrasted greatly. The values held by the individual soldiers of the two armies differed. American soldiers had a tendency to think on their own accord and often with liberty in mind (143). In contrast, the British soldiers held the values that their army held (144). American soldiers often fought with the same men from their town or village (142). The British soldiers, however, were pulled from society and isolated from it (144). During the time of the British soldiers’ isolation, they were tightly disciplined and rigorously trained (144). This too shows a contrast between the British and American soldiers. British soldiers underwent a stricter regimen of training while the training Americans had was more informal. The commanding men of the armies, the officers, were different as well. The British officers held themselves aloof from war and quite distant from their men (145). British officers were also much harsher on their men and trained them more effectively (136). The American officer sought to achieve the refinement of the British officers but often failed in achieving it. (145). The training American officers gave to their men was also not as cohesive like the
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;
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
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
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.
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.
In the research article “OBEY AT ANY COST”, Stanley Milgram conducted a study to examine the concept of obedience and composed disturbing findings. Milgram’s findings on obedience are considered one of the most influential and famous works in the history of psychology. His examination of obedience was that people were possibly capable of doing abuse to other individuals by being required to do so. Milgram pertained this to World War II and the inhumanity that has been bolstered and the barbarity. Yet, his hypothesis was that people have the propensity to obey is authoritative, which cancels out a person’s ability to act morally, sympathetically, or even ethically.
In Gwynne Dyer’s article “Anybody’s Son Will Do”, the conversion of civilians to killers is being explained in stages. This articles focuses more on male psychology and malleable people. The author’s belief is that people can be easily brainwashed if they are put in constant stress. To support this idea, the author gives examples of military training around the world which psychologically destroys individual values and loyalties and rebuilds them to make combat troops that will do exactly what has been ordered and defend his groups to the death.
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.
Soliders carry very few standards in today's day and age, when the order is given you follow and act, the circumstance of immoral orders is understandable but a solider should still meet his or hers given instruction. The keys to a solider system is the policy letters and army regulations that dictate every given bit of information on army and its moral history. Within each article and sub articles the information is pertinent to the success of soldier and shares the history as well, this can provide lessons to those who instruct other soliders in
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 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.
One pleasant afternoon, my classmates and I decided to visit the Houston Museum of Fine Arts to begin on our museum assignment in world literature class. According to Houston Museum of Fine Art’s staff, MFAH considers as one of the largest museums in the nation and it contains many variety forms of art with more than several thousand years of unique history. Also, I have never been in a museum in a very long time especially as big as MFAH, and my experience about the museum was unique and pleasant. Although I have observed many great types and forms of art in the museum, there were few that interested me the most.
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.