Unfortunately for anarchists, civilization and social order commences when people sign away their natural rights and submit to authority in exchange for protection from others outside of the society that has been formed. Some civilizations such as North Korea, demand more submission to authority than others. While it important to maintain respect for the rules of society, there are boundaries that indicate the difference between followership for protection, and blind obedience. With total obedience, society becomes more dangerous because the leaders of it can push whatever ideologies they want. The point at which obedience to an authority figure becomes dangerous is when society pushes people to become a hivemind which rejects ideologies of …show more content…
Fueled by extreme nationalism, these three dictatorships designed their systems of submission by the people to cater to the needs of the state as whole, and not to better society so the individual can innovate and further it. While some civilizations such as Nazi Germany did contribute a lot to the world through invention, this innovation was done through the people who did not have to submit to authority simply because they were a part of the government or military that oppressed others (“German Inventions of the Nazi Period.”) The average person who does not have to worry about submitting to authority has more time to think about how they can contribute or better the place they live …show more content…
For example, a nurse once allowed a patient to die because her employer prohibited medical staff from administering CPR or helping patients in similar ways (Hess.) Because of a worker that was scared of getting fired, blind obedience to rules caused a person to die. Rules are a great thing to help guide employees with standard procedures and duties, but blind obedience to the rules of anything can possibly blur the lines behind right and wrong. Employees who are blindly obedient and hide behind company policies tend to do so because they fear the consequences if they fail to do so, in addition to an inherent need to protect the place they work at (Hess.) Everyone at a job needs an authority figure such as a boss to look up to so they can continue to have a job, but minimal rules will keep the employees focused on the job at hand to serve others, not to follow a bunch of rules to keep their cash flow. On a much more darker side, some people exploit blind obedience to their own dangerous ideologies. For example; “Aum Shinrikyo which was responsible for attacks using a deadly nerve gas in sixteen Tokyo subway stations in 1995. Although the movement’s beginnings seemed innocuous, Aum began demanding unquestioning dedication to his vision” (Davo.) Although many ideologies help bring people together to cause change, some authority
This essay will compare the three leaders who are famous for their dictatorship and totalitarianism during the 30's decade-Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. Totalitarianism is when a government gains absolute and total control over the country, including the freedom of thought and will as well as the citizen?s lifestyle, no other political parties are allowed and has the concept where the country is most important. The difference and similarity between their ideology, usage of propaganda & censorship and the method of improving the economy would be stated and explained through examples. Basically, their ultimate aim was the same, they all tried to make their country better. However, there was their own ambition wanting for power included in their ruling which was probably why they all ended up dictating their county. They all abolished the democracy idea and used similar methods to rule their country, they all had control over the media for example censoring media and books and editing them in order to favor their own image. There are major similarities and minor differences between the ways of these leaders?s ruling. There would be a bigger gap between Stalin and the rest because he claimed himself as a communist whilst Hitler and Mussolini were fascists.
With the dawn of civilization soon thereafter followed the creation of authoritarian and totalitarian establishments. The history of man is inundated with instances of leaders rising to power over certain groups of people and through various means gaining formidable control to be used for good, evil, or an ambiguous mixture of both. However, it is an undeniable fact that once unchecked power is acquired, tyranny often ensues, and thus a dictatorial regime is born. Over the centuries, governmental establishments have risen and fallen, but as history and civilization progress, so does the potential for a larger and more powerful domination. The development of differing and contrasting theologies and structural philosophies leads not only to conflict, but perhaps more prominently to unification under one rule with a common belief, especially when that unifying belief provides a promising sense of belonging and structure to a weak society. This is what led to the rise of two of the most domineering totalitarian governments in history: Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or the Third Reich.
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
In Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," he uses a hyperbole to support his belief that "one person can make a change," an idea still relevant today. Thoreau uses many forms of literary techniques such as multiple hyperbole, emotional appeals, and paradoxes. Thoreau uses these to sustain his ideas on civil disobedience. He believes if you believe in something, and support something you should do whatever it takes to help the cause. Many people in today's society believe to just go with the flow, rather than living like Thoreau has, and supporting his own beliefs no matter what the consequence. Henry David Thoreau had a lot of personal authority, he was all about his own independence. Many different people believed in being a non-conformist, and Thoreau was one of them, and he very well showed how much he supported it. Thoreau was not the only nonconformist, they're many people who followed his beliefs and they refused to be bound by anybody, or anything they did not support. Other non-conformists were Gandhi, Galileo, Malcom X and many more.
In response to the annexation of Texas in 1845 by the United States, Henry David Thoreau's wrote the essay, Civil Disobedience. Thoreau felt that this purely economic move by the United States expedited the Civil War, which he, and many Americans, disapproved of. In his essay, Thoreau argues that government should not be in control of the people and that the people should be able to rule themselves freely however they please. In addition, he clearly states and points out that in many instances it is best when individual rights take priority over state authority.
Civil Disobedience is a paradox. Civility and disobedience diametrically oppose one another; civility implies politeness or a regard to the status quo while disobedience is a refusal to submit to the standard. When these words are coupled together, however, they compliment one another. The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to disregard the obligation of observing a law with the intention of highlighting a need for change. Morality, Religion, and Ethics often play into the decision to willingly break a law which creates more depth behind the practical meaning phrase, because those three tend to emphasize a respect for authority and integrity. When people break the law in the name of civility, they often are asking questions like, “What must I
Oscar Wilde, an Irish author, once suggested that if one were to ever look at the discourse of history, they would find that disobedience is man’s original virtue, and through disobedience social progress is made. The study of history is the study of social progress. Social progressions are the changes that occur in society that progress or improve social, political, and economic structures. Social progress can be achieved in several ways, but just like Oscar Wilde, I believe that disobedience is a valuable human trait that just so happens to be a huge part in the progression our society has made and continues to make.
Taking the spontaneous route, many political thinkers believe that if given a chance to develop peacefully, a society will build up an complex structure of traditional practices and beliefs. This will create the most wisdom throughout a system since it is based on ideas that have been passed down through generations to be practiced and perfected. Tinder then gives three major sources of spontaneous order as contrasted with humanly manufactured, and power-centered order. The first is anarchism, or the belief that humans can get along without power. Anarchists thrive on the belief that humans are naturally good, and that if following natural forces, and laws created though habit and custom, can live harmoniously without gov...
Dictatorship leaves every idea, every thought, and every possibility possible. It just so happened that one person that had the dictatorship this time, that one person, Hitler. Unfortunately, he had horrible intentions to begin with and had psychotic thoughts of how things should be. He realized he had the power, so he took advantage of it and used it, for his benefit and horrifically it worked. Hitler was so strong as soon as he took this role, he won peoples trust immediately made himself look perfect and reasonable. He led them to believe he was something and someone totally different than the real Hitler. He instantly became popular had many followers, the Nazis; which, I assume were the most scared of Hitler. I’ve heard my uncle say, “If you can’t beat them, join them”, and I figure this is how they felt, if they didn’t help they would be next. My grandfather used to say, “Get on board with the bus, if you don’t, I don’t want to hear it when the bus runs you
Anarchism may not be the only stance one is able to take, but it is a very influential view with ideas that could change the world that we live in today. Through many of its beliefs, anarchism has the potential to improve the lives of others in ways that one never though possible. If we were to change to anarchy, people can work together, be treated equally, and find ways to improve their lives. Although anarchism does not have a government that holds it together, it manages to keep groups of people together through their trust and compromises. It’s possible for people to live without others telling them how to live. It is not a way of chaos and destruction; rather, it is a way that you can live without being told you can’t do certain things. Instead, you can work with others to find what is best for everyone who has chosen to coopera
Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This question raises the discussion of what we call civil disobedience. Elliot Zashin, author of Civil Disobedience and Democracy, defines civil disobedience as, “a knowing violation of public norm (considered binding by local authorities but which may ultimately be invalidated by the courts) as a form of protest: it is non-revolutionary, public, and nonviolent (i.e. there is no use of physical violence except self-defensively when participants are physically attacked, and no resistance to arrest if made properly and without undue force).” (Zashin, 118) One point that Carl Cohen, associate professor of philosophy at University of Michigan, thinks is essential to the definition is that the, “mere knowledge of the unlawfulness does not make it civil disobedience…the civil disobedient must do more than knowingly break the law. Absolutely essential is the further element of protest.” (Cohen, 11) In other words, civil disobedience is knowingly breaking a law to protest the law. This may not be as controversial as some topics, but there are many strong points on both sides.
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
However if people did not conform to the norms/values that society thrusts upon them, and there were many deviants, this would surely result in anarchy. But so it is, people do conform, and surely enough society roles on as, as both functionalist and Marxists agree " society is more important than the individuals within it"(12)
On some level, whether it is to our teachers, bosses, or just the local government, the majority of us are obedient. According to Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, “Obedience is as basic an element in the structure of social life as one can point to” (631). Society would lack order and be full of chaos without obedience. Authority helps society function; obeying that authority ensures stability. But at what point does obedience cross the line from advantageous to detrimental? Obedience becomes dangerous when it is harmful to one’s self or others.