Erich Fromm's Disobedience As A Psychological And Moral Problem

From the sensitive topics, like those of ethnicity, race, mental disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity, society has taken some slow steps in a positive and more progressive direction regarding tolerance. It would be prudent to first take a closer look at how Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines and differentiates tolerance versus acceptance. Tolerance is defined as, “capacity to endure pain or hardship.” (Merriam-Webster) Acceptance on the other hand is defined as, “A taking or consenting to take something offered; 2. Approval.” (Merriam-Webster) The most identifiable difference between these two concepts is the interactive consent present in acceptance that is not as apparent in tolerance. Tolerance is a more passive concept,

It is an antithetical perspective in relation to the other professionals that will be discussed in this paper, but important nonetheless. He also takes some time to discuss the differences in the varieties of obedience that exist. One of the most significant notions to take away from Fromm’s essay is exhibited in this quote, “Human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience.” (Fromm P. 574) He explains that because Adam and Eve initiated the beginning of human history by an act of disobedience (eating the apple) that the end of human history would be due to an act of blind obedience. In the quote that follows, he continues to clarify by communicating the fact that as humans live technologically in the atomic age, most people in high ranking positions of power are still living, emotionally in the Stone Age, “… while our mathematics, astronomy, and the natural sciences are of the twentieth century, most of our ideas about politics, the state, and society lag far behind the age of science. If mankind commits suicide it will be because people will obey those who command them to push the deadly buttons; because they will obey the archaic passions of fear,

The Effect of Intergroup Contact, Empathy, Cultural Openness, and In-Group Bias on Assertive Bystander Intervention Intentions.”, they discuss how in a bystander effect experiment in which a group of adolescent girls is presented with a name-calling scenario. Instead of perpetuating the situation due to intergroup anxieties they behaved as assertive bystanders because they employed empathy, as stated in the following quote, “…we found that intergroup contact had an indirect effect on assertive bystander intentions via empathy, cultural openness and in-group bias. More specifically, greater intergroup contact was related to higher levels of empathy, higher levels of cultural openness and reduced intergroup bias, which in turn were associated with greater assertive bystander intentions.” The presence of empathy allowed the girls to understand the position and perspective of the immigrant being called names. This exemplifies the progressive direction groups of future generations are moving toward, acting on information and understanding, rather than biased emotion. The one limitation in adding bystanders to cause positive effects seems to be around surveys or feedback, such as on social media like Facebook, Instagram or twitter. In their article, “Leverage Between the Buffering Effect and the Bystander Effect in Social Networking.”, Yu-Ping Chiu and Shu-Chen Chang discuss how when one reaches a certain