More handpicked essays just for you.
Character Analysis in the story A good man is hard to find
Character Analysis in the story A good man is hard to find
The role of obedience in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The United States Military has always had a high standard of only accepting those who are willing to follow strict orders, always obey authority figures, and have complete conformity. In the movie “A Few Good Men,” directed by Rob Reiner and released in 1992, the impacts that obedience and disobedience have are prevalent. In the movie, Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey accidentally kill a member of their unit, William Santiago, during a code red, a way to punish misbehaved marines. Santiago was not fulfilling his duties as a Marine and therefore received the code red. He was killed during the process by his lungs bleeding when a rag was shoved down his throat. It was thought by the opposition in court that the …show more content…
rag had been poisoned and they had motive and intent to kill but Daniel Kaffee was put to the task of defending Dawson and Downey and used the argument that they were just following orders. Looking at Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of development, “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” by Crispin Sartwell, and“Just do What the Pilot Tells you” by Theodore Dalrymple among other sources, one can see why there was certain disobedience and obedience in “A Few Good Men” specifically about Harold Dawson. In Kohlberg’s developmental stages written about by William Crain, Kohlberg has a theory of how people change from different levels of obedience and disobedience. Sartwell’s article focuses on the argument that anyone can become prone to be a genocidal killer with deference to authority. Dalrymple’s implies that everyone has a degree of obedience to authorities even if they don’t claim it and that obedience is absolutely necessary in certain situations. These pieces ultimately explain why Dawson disobeyed and obeyed at the times he did. Harold Dawson, in the movie “A Few Good Men”, obeys accordingly to what situation he is in and proves that any situation or action in the Marines, whether obedient or disobedient, can lead to punishment. In the movie’s timeline of events, Dawson was at first disobedient to authority.
When another member of Dawson’s unit was sentenced to without food for a span of time, He proceeded to still give him food. When questioned on the stand in court for the murder of Santiago, Corporal Jeffrey Barnes was asked why Santiago hadn’t previously been given a code red. His answer was that Dawson tried to prevent everyone from giving Santiago a code red and everyone was then too intimidated by him to do it. Both of these actions prove that Dawson had morals that were more important than being obedient. This is in Kohlberg’s third stage. “Good behavior means having good motives…” (Crain 4). Dawson’s concern for others was greater than his want to obey authority at this time and he thought the order was unjust, making it okay to disobey under the Marine oath and described by Rod Powers in his article “Military Orders To Obey or Not to Obey.” “An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution.” (Powers). He thought he wouldn’t be punished and was doing the moral and right thing similarly to an attitude shown in “Just do What the Pilot Tells You.” Dalrymple talks about how he heard a women on a plane say she is against all authority and how she probably thought she was a taking heroic moral stance similar to Dawson. Although Dawson isn’t against all authority as the woman on the plane was, Dalrymple makes the point that upholding authority can be prosaic and cowardly. The combination of Dawson’s moral values and his misinterpretation of the lawfulness of the order ended up getting him
punished. Dawson faced the consequences of not being obedient, or acting based on his moral views, in the marines and received a grade of below average rating that cost him from getting promoted. This was a part of why when ordered a code red, Dawson didn’t hesitate to obey. Even though it was clear he did not want to hurt Santiago in any way, Dawson did not want to face further consequences for disobeying again. He was looking out for his own security which is seen as a quality needed to recruit a person to genocide by Crispin Sartwell. “...willing to make moral compromises to preserve it.” (Sartwell 118). Also, in Powers’ article, he emphasizes the punishment that can be received by disobeying lawful orders. “In fact...a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death.” (Powers). The fear of even more severe punishment had a part in why Dawson chose to obey and give the code red. He had to again make a judgement on whether or not the order was unlawful or not but the thoughts of more punishment if he disobeyed again had an impact on his decision. He was then willing to give up his moral values to look out for himself. In the article “Morality and Military Obedience” by Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth H. Wenker, Wenker says “a moral obligation to obey must rest on something more than the mere fact of authority.” This again shows that Dawson went away with his moral values when obeying in this situation. If a person considers their moral values when deciding to obey just because they are being ordered by authority doesn’t mean they will indeed obey. It was previously known that Dawson was against giving a code red to Santiago so therefore if he still took his moral values into consideration he would have disobeyed again. He transitioned from the third stage to the fourth stage of Kohlberg’s stages. “Now the emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.” (Crain 5). Dawson realized he needed to follow orders and obey higher ranking officers in order to look out for his own well being which is ironic because Dawson actually ends up getting punished again but this time for obeying orders. What coincides with Dawson ultimately transitioning into Kohlberg’s fourth stage when ordered a code red is the fact that he is in the Marines and a certain standard is required to be upheld for Marines. At first he let his moral values get in the way of his oath to the Marine Code, which states one must obey the orders of the officers appointed over them according to regulation and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but then didn’t hesitate to obey for a much more serious act. Another reason Dawson shifted from being disobedient to obedient was because of his comprehended role as a Marine. It wasn’t just being punished that prevented him from disobeying again. He settles into Kohlberg’s fourth stage because of how important authority figures and the social order is in the Marines. If orders were constantly being disobeyed in the Marines the system would fall apart similarly to doctors as written by Dalrymple. “...if junior doctors were to disobey their superiors every time they disagreed with them, the system would fall apart.” (Dalrymple 121). Marines revolve their lives around discipline and effectiveness to make their system work suggested as comparable to ants in the article “Eusocial Climber” by Steve Connor. “Individuals who cooperate together in groups achieve more and enhance the survival of their group” (Connor). Ants revolve their society around obedience and always fulfilling their specific role similar to an ideal marine’s behavior. Connor also states the fact that ants’ allegiance to their queen is central to their society. This is similar to how the Marines have a distinct system of officer ranking and lower officers are taught to obey commands of higher ranks. Dawson realized he couldn’t disobey just because he didn’t agree with his superiors. Why Dawson didn’t always have this mindset is unbeknownst though. He at first disobeys to keep a Marine from being hungry but then goes on to unintentionally kill Santiago based on orders to physically hurt him in a code red. His comprehension of what a Marine has to follow definitely changed. Obeying authorities as a Marine also has qualities that Sartwell describes as needed to recruit a person to genocide specifically in regards to social consensus and being a member of a group. “...they seek to associate themselves with a consensus of their acquaintances.” (Sartwell 118). This ties in within Dawson not wanting to be seen as a below average Marine as when he first broke orders which ultimately cost him a promotion. He did things he didn’t want to do because of his respect for the Marine Code. He even references the code multiple times throughout the movie when conversing with his lawyer, Daniel Kaffee. A main reason Dawson was obedient was because of his realization of the standards he needed to sustain to be a Marine. Although, because of the instant obedience that is pounded into Marines’ heads, it is hard for them to justify when to actually disobey orders based on unlawfulness. Dawson had false impressions that he needed to be obedient even if the order given was unlawful because of his previous punishment and the way marines are taught. Although Dawson and Downey were only following Colonel Jessup’s orders, they still ended up being discharged from the Marines for following that order because it was unlawful. Even when discharged, Dawson and Downey were completely surprised it was happening because they were making the argument that they were just doing what they were told to do. This proves that in the Marines, being obedient is not always the right decision and both obeying and disobeying can get oneself into trouble. In “A Delicate Balance: Knowing yourself and the risks of military obedience” by Adam Luckwaldt, Luckwaldt says that Marines are told to “exercise appropriate moral judgment and decline to follow orders that are obviously illegal” but makes the point that from day one, Marines are taught instant obedience to orders and the unlawful orders rule is not emphasized. When Dawson actually thinks through whether or not to obey both times though, it turns out bad for him proving the difficulty of judging an order on its lawfulness. At first when Dawson was in Kohlberg’s third stage, he did exercise his moral judgement and ended up getting punished so when given another order he decided to not use his moral judgment when this time it was actually necessary and should have disobeyed. Dawson’s thought process confirms why both being obedient and disobedient can end poorly and why it is so tough to justify choosing one over the other which is also shown in Powers’s article. “It’s not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it’s whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal” (Powers). This makes it even harder for Marines to decide whether or not the should obey or disobey an order and it is easy to make the wrong choice as Dawson demonstrates multiple times. The Marine Officer’s ranked higher than Colonel Jessup thought the code red was an unlawful order so that it is why Dawson ends up getting punished even when following orders. The complexity of choosing whether to obey or disobey in the Marines ultimately makes it so that any decision can end an individual up in trouble. If Dawson had actually disobeyed Jessup’s order to give a code red, Dawson still would’ve most likely gotten disciplined because he was disobeying a higher ranking officer. This would be the case for almost any unlawful order in the Marines. If one obeys, they are penalized for following an unlawful order. If one disobeys. they can be penalized by the higher ranking officer for disobeying their order. For any Marine in this situation it can be a lose lose situation. The best thing they can do is justify the order to their best ability. The complex situation Marines such as Dawson are put in all the time displays the different levels of morality and integrity different people have. A higher ranking officer might not even know they are giving an unlawful order if their moral views influence them to think it is lawful. Then even the ones receiving the order have their own viewpoints and Dawson showed that with or without moral views factored in, the situation can still end poorly. All the differing judgements and viewpoints in the Marines makes the system prone to fail at some points when there is controversial orders. This needs to be recognized and changes to the system should be considered to make everyone involved less prone to tough decisions and ridicule. Few people should have to be put into the scenarios Dawson was put in.
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).
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.
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.
If a person of authority ordered you inflict a 15 to 400 volt electrical shock on another innocent human being, would you follow your direct orders? That is the question that Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University tested in the 1960’s. Most people would answer “no,” to imposing pain on innocent human beings but Milgram wanted to go further with his study. Writing and Reading across the Curriculum holds a shortened edition of Stanley Milgram’s “The Perils of Obedience,” where he displays an eye-opening experiment that tests the true obedience of people under authority figures. He observes that most people go against their natural instinct to never harm innocent humans and obey the extreme and dangerous instructions of authority figures. Milgram is well aware of his audience and organization throughout his article, uses quotes directly from his experiment and connects his research with a real world example to make his article as effective as possible.
LM01, Ethical Leadership. (2012). Maxwell Gunter AFB. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education (AETC)
The Army currently has an ethical code ebodied in the Army Values, which provides guidance to the individual and the organization. These values are universal across the Army regardless of an individual’s personal background or religious morals. Professional Military Education schools teach the Army Ethic and evaluation reports for leaders affirm this ethic. The Army punishes individuals, especially leaders, who violate this code. The Army administratively punishes Soldiers who do not adhere to this code, and the severity of punishment increases with rank. One recent and highly visible example of this is former General Petraeus’s adultery and the subsequent professional sanctions he experienced. The Army gr...
Put into another form, “[The Marines] pour forth with the poignant power of superb human beings doing what they believe is truly righteous. There is grace and magnetism in the way these clean-cut kids hurl themselves out of planes, surge through forbidding terrain and leap with awesome fortitude over one barricade after another. The ads use sophisticated psychology to lure today 's peace-loving young adults into our "humanitarian" military.” (Kronstadt, 2014). It’s through these images and power attached to words and amazing propaganda that gets youth to dive into the world of war with the Marines. The ad under analysis, tells the recruit they will get to “walk with honor”, “command with resolve” and “take your place among the most elite warriors on earth”. They get to ‘take their place’, saying it as though they already have their place, as if the place is waiting for them. The ad also highlights the that the Marines are the more elite warriors on earth, the word warrior itself is captivating. Warriors are seen as the best of the best when it comes to fighting, adding on to the that the elite warriors, projects a view of the ultimate, best fighters there could ever be – and for a lot of people, that is beyond exciting. The ad is also illuminating the fact that they will ‘command with resolve’, meaning they will become firm and determined as a leader. The Marines will give them the skillset and knowledge to be able to command and hold people’s lives in their hands by training and lead them into battles – even though that word is not touched upon in any advertisement. The “walk with honour” has already been highlighted in this essay, but it is important to note that honour, patriotism, freedom and democracy are all tied together in...
In A Tactical Ethic, Moral Conduct in the Insurgent Battlespace, author Dick Couch addresses what he believes to be an underlying problem, most typical of small units, of wanton ethical and moral behavior partly stemming from the negative “ethical climate and moral culture” of today’s America (Couch, D., 2010, p. 15). In chapter one, he reveals what A Tactical Ethic will hope to accomplish; that is identify the current ethics of today’s military warriors, highlight what is lacking, and make suggestions about what can be done to make better the ethical behavior of those on the battlefield and in garrison. He touches on some historic anecdotes to highlight the need for high ethics amongst today’s military warriors as well as briefly mentions
The African-American inner city is a place where family can come in the form of gangs or collective areas, such as the pizzeria in the movie, Do the Right Thing, and yet these places and the people that find surrogate family in the inner city often only lead lives of violence. There is a common gathering place, in this case the pizza shop. Social networking happens in the streets and in the urban setting. There are many ethnic mixes, and in this case the Italian pizza shop is owned by Italian immigrants, and this is significant. Urban isolation, and the daily struggles and tension are a powerful part of, Do the Right Thing. The fights that erupt as the heat in the inner city rises, and so do tempers and frustrations. Spike Lee does a great job of revealing the realities of how harsh life in the inner city is for those who are in an urban jungle, and how that will shape their lives.
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
Twelve Angry Men is a very interesting play about an unfortunate young man, who was convicted of killing his dad. The worst part was, the young man was only nineteen, and his life was just starting. The jurors listened to all the evidence, then came the hard part, making the decision: guilty, or innocent. Eleven jurors said guilty and only one said innocent. There was a lot of peer pressure involved. I decided to write about different peer pressures three of the jurors used.
Besides, his actions continued to be abusive when Claudio’s sister, Isabella, comes to beg for her brother’s life. He proposes Isabella to sleep with him and only then he would agree not to sentence Claudio to death. In this case, he also uses his authority to gain what he wants, which is obviously an abuse of power. Another example of the abuse of power is in “A Few Good Men.” In the movie two U.S. Marines, Dawson, and Downey, are judged in a court-martial for killing their colleague, Private Santiago and are defended by LT Kaffee with the assistance of Cmdr. Galloway. The defenders are suspicious about the details of the murder and the storyline about Santiago. According to it, Santiago was not respecting commands, requiring to be transferred and his fellow Marines decided to train him into a better Marine. They suspect that the “Code Red,” which is an extrajudicial punishment, was ordered and carried out by two Marines. De facto, “Code Red” was ordered by Colonel Jessep, and LT Kaffee can make him confess it under pressure in the court-martial. Thus, Colonel’s example also shows abusive behavior as he used his power to achieve what he wanted bearing in mind the fact that U.S. Marines could not disobey orders. Therefore, it could be seen that law enforcement does not always mean applying the letter of the law and following the rule
Defiance is a 2008 American docudrama film starring Daniel Craig and directed by Edward Zwick. The plot takes place in Western Europe has Tuvia Bielski and his brothers lead a Jewish partisan group against Nazi forces in the struggle for their lives. The group saved more than 1200 Jews from Nazi persecution and would be one of the most successful Jewish resistance groups during WW2. The movie is well done involving multiple elements and a high dose of action and adrenaline. Defiance generally did well in theatres and was well approved by critics; and WELL displays some of the events of the Holocaust.
Good Will Hunting is a film which conveys many interlocking themes and messages to its viewers. One of these nicely woven themes is placing trust in the people we care about as well as people we have only recently become acquainted with. Another message, arguably more significant than the last is finding and pursuing the potential one has and bringing meaning into our lives in any form we choose. I believe the potential and success this film demonstrates is that success, growth, and meaning in a person’s life does not always have to come in the form of advancing in a career or social status but rather in the form of overcoming hardships and developing close reciprocating relationships.
During the Vietnam War, the first platoon (approximately forty men) was lead by a young officer named William Calley. Young Calley was drafted into the US Army after high school, but it did not take long for him to adjust to being in the army, with a quick transition to the lifestyle of the military, he wanted to make it his career. In high school, Calley was a kind, likable and “regular” high school student, he seemed to be a normal teenager, having interest in things that other boys his age typically had. He was never observed acting in a cruel or brutal way. In Vietnam, Calley was under direct order of company commander, Captain Ernest Medina, whom he saw as a role model, he looked up to Medina. (Detzer 127).