Lance Corporal Harold Dawson has much to lose from disobeying the code red order from Colonel Jessup. By previously disobeying an order that contradicted with his moral compass, he was denied a promotion in rank. Because of the negative result from disobeying an order from a superior, there is an incentive for Dawson to obey orders. Milgram would find this course of action to be reasonable based on society’s standards because he found the power of authority to be slightly unstable with no threats of punishment imposed on his subjects; however, he readily concludes authority “managed to command a degree of obedience” even while having no power to impose any punishment (Milgram 88). Concurring with this conjecture is Zimbardo as he found prisoners
Kendrick then punished Dawson for his disobedience by neglecting to promote him and negatively evaluating his fitness evaluation. From this point forward, Dawson had just seen the introduction of the power that Kendrick had over his military experience, one that Kaffee would later recall to be “A lesson he learned after the Curtis Barnes incident.” (A Few…) But, if this order was no different in terms of punishment or in the matter of a soldier simply being disregardful of their marine code, then why was Dawson so reluctant to disobey Kendrick the second time involving Santiago? Not only would Dawson more than likely have to face a much greater consequence for having disobeyed a second time but also Kendrick must have stressed the importance of this order as his leadership was being critically by Jessup.
Military leaders may find themselves in questionable situations: perceived as unethical; lack moral consciousness, or question their character. Dwight Eisenhower demonstrated moral courage by leveraging the ethical principles of duty, loyalty and subordination in endorsing the French Vichy leader Admiral Darlan.
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).
The Convicts, by Iain Lawrence, is a story of a young boy who faces great odds to complete his quest to help his father. This novel takes many twists and turns through the landscape of London, more specifically in nineteenth century London. However, London is not described in the picturesque view many people have come to know London as. Lawrence shows the uglier more rugged lifestyle of many poor people in London during this time period. Within a society like this in London, swindling, gangs, and prison become common subjects among the lower classes, especially in this novel. Although life was hard for many, the characters in this novel find adventure along the way while aboard ships and through underground sewers.
Milgram complies with a follow-up questionnaire of a subject. In the follow-up, the man was appalled by the way he was able to be obedient throughout the experiment and states that his wife referred to him as Eichmann, a WWII Nazi official who maintained an alibi of merely following orders (Milgram 84). Complying with Szegedy-Maszak and Milgram, Robert Hoyk, a doctor of psychology, found similar results in the work office. In his article “Roots of Unethical Behavior,” he found that bosses can direct employees to do unethical actions which the employees morally question. But due to fear of losing their job, the employees perform these acts (Hoyk). Milgram would agree with Hoyk and add that for his experiment, the “experimenter” was simply a man in a lab coat and did not threaten with any form of consequence. How does that relate to Szegedy-Maszak and the Abu Ghraib scandal? In the article “Military Orders: To Obey or Not to Obey?” written by Rod Powers, the oath in which all military personnel must swear to is written. The oath states, “. . . and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice” (Powers). As mentioned by Powers, these recruits are instilled with the practice of obeying immediately and without question (Powers). In fact, if military personnel do not obey their superior officers, it is considered a crime by Articles 90, 91, and 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. According to the same site, such acts are punishable by death (www.usmilitary.about.com). Szegedy-Maszak might conclude that this could be a possible reason as to why those American troops found that they were
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
This book has not changed my views on ethics in combat nor in garrison. In the many years I have been in the military and the over seven combat deployments, I must disagree with Mr. Couch. Instances of unethical behavior are not encouraged to the degree he thinks nor as widespread. Of course, as with any organization where people are present, there will always be outliers
...ional decorum in dealing with Ridgway through the end. Eisenhower’s vision of morality and concern for human life seemed to have escaped him in his willingness to pursue a national strategic policy –reduce the Army by exploiting nuclear weaponry in the form of “mass retaliation” to obliterate innocent civilians. Professionalism is not a matter just for the military; it is also a matter for the civilian authorities. Both must function in concert to enable the functionality of civil-military relations to attain both civilian control and an affective national security policy. that when professionalism is maintained between the highest echelons of civilian national authorities and senior ranking military officials, genuine control is attainable; without professionalism, there is a change in the balance of control – thus, making it difficult to assert control.
Gresham M. Sykes describes the society of captives from the inmates’ point of view. Sykes acknowledges the fact that his observations are generalizations but he feels that most inmates can agree on feelings of deprivation and frustration. As he sketches the development of physical punishment towards psychological punishment, Sykes follows that both have an enormous effect on the inmate and do not differ greatly in their cruelty.
Most prisoners that are in prison now are more than likely to be free one day where some will spend the rest of their living life there. When they enter into the prison system, they lose more than just being able to wear what they want. They even lose more than just their civil liberties. Gresham Sykes was the first to outline these major deprivations that prisoners go through in his book The Society of Captives. His five major pains, which he calls “pains of imprisonment”, were loss of liberty, loss of autonomy, loss of security, deprivation of heterosexual relationships, and deprivation of goods and services. Matthew Robinson adds onto Sykes’ five pains with three more of his own. His additional pains are loss of voting rights, loss of dignity,
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
Davenport’s various violations of the Code need to be considered from another point of view as an example of responsible disobedience. As Dr. Davenport and Antwone are both members of the military, there is a certain camaraderie experienced between them that the general public does not experience. Taking this into consideration, Dr. Davenport may be expressing responsible disobedience as he violates various standards in the Code in an attempt to respect the intricacies of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007). Because the military is a culture of its own, it is difficult to say whether any or all of the situations that resulted in an ethical violation were justified. It is easy to say that Dr. Davenport violated principle ethics during his work with Antwone but virtue ethics may support Dr. Davenport as he interpreted the standards in the context of the military culture (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2007).
unjustifiable in order to satisfy an obedient figure. Milgram feels that obedience is an important aspect of society; therefore, he looks to prove his hypothesis that obedience to an authority figure can affect someone's ethical and moral compass. His states that a subject will blindly obey orders despite their morals and ethics. His theory is people will not intentionally inflict pain on another human being, which turned out to be very obvious that moral obligation to another is not as important as following orders. The results concluded that as long as the person does not feel totally responsible for their own actions, then he or she will likely go as far as they could to injure another human being for the sake of authority. Milgram was unsuccessful in showing that a subject would stop inflicting pain after a certain voltage threshold was reached.
In the film “ A Few Good Men” the rule of law and fundamental justice were not followed by Lance Cpl. Harold and Pfc. Louden Downey. The rule of law was disobeyed as soon as Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden acted above the law. They committed a criminal offence and disregarded Pvt. Santiago's rights. Although, the orders were given by superior officer, Col. Nathan Joseph, the fact of the matter still remains the same, a crime was committed . Pvt. Santiago’s rights were not taken into consideration, which inevitably lead to his death. Although Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden clearly disregarded the rules of law and acted above the law, procedural justice was still exercised. Both Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden were given rights to a fair trial and the
Stanley Milgram is well known for his work with obedience to authority. His work, “The Perils of Obedience,” studied whether average individuals would obey an authority figure, telling them to do something that harms another individual.