Obedience To Authority Analysis

In The Perils of Obedience, Stanley Milgram introduces us to his experimental studies on the conflict between one’s own conscience and obedience to authority. From these experiments, Milgram discovered that a lot of people will obey a figure in authority; irrespective of the task given - even if it goes against their own moral belief and values. Milgram’s decision to conduct these experiments was to investigate the role of Adolf Eichmann (who played a major part in the Holocaust) and ascertain if his actions were based on the fact that he was just following orders; as most Germans accused of being guilty for war crimes commonly explained that they were only being obedient to persons in higher authority.

People are consistently changing the way that they look, act, and even some of their beliefs just to fit in with society. There’s an invariably never-ending desire to want to feel accepted by others. Social pressure is what drives humans to do things that they know are wrong, but yet, they continue to do so. “The Rules about the Rules,” Stephen Carter describes a person of integrity would know right from wrong and would do right at all personally cost. Amy Tan Mother Tongue, was often embarrassed by the broken English her family spoke. She would conceal her accent whenever she could to avoid the embarrassment. Culture and gender play an immense role when it comes to trying to fit in. In America, you have to fit in as an American while keeping the roots of your

The third reason for why people obey is when a person shifts from the autonomous state to the agentic state; this is called the agentic shift. Milgrams participants believed they were ‘just following orders’ and did not consider themselves responsible; his participants even sighed with relief when the experimenter said “I am responsible for what happens here.” Evidence from war criminals, has shown that Eichmann, who was trialled and found guilty for the Nazi war killings as he was the man who organized which camps the Jewish people would end up at, said “it wasn’t my

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,

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

Browning, in his book Ordinary men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland, most of the interviewees seem to have a mindset that the killings were wrong but they needed to follow orders. Their attitude was that it was necessary to carry out the orders even though the orders may not have seemed morally or ethically right. The reason the battalion obeyed the orders is because it came from the authorities who had instilled the fear of repercussions in the Reserves and took advantage of the men’s obedience to authority. A quote from Trapp sums up the mindset perfectly when he said, “man… such jobs don’t suit me but orders are orders.” If not out of obedience then what else motivated the men to carry out the orders which led to them becoming mass murderers?

How in the world is the U.S. considered a melting pot if the slightest cultural differences place you under a spotlight? This “melting pot” has only ever caused a rift between me and my classmates who observed my lunch in a puzzled and disgusted manner. How could I accept who I was if I was ashamed of where I came from? I didn’t belong- I was an outsider and it was obvious. All I ever wanted was to be happy and so I constantly yearned for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to replace my ethnic

The essays that comprise Traditional Classics on Leadership present varying notions of authority and of challenging authority. This is largely due to the fact that this manuscript is comprised of essays from 31 contributors, ranging from well-known political theorists to some of the more salient voices for individuality that the world has known. Still, there are some points of commonalities in these essays that present a synthesized viewpoint of the concept of challenging authority.

Stanley Milgram’s obedience study is known as the most famous study ever conducted. Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment that focused on the conflict between personal conscience and compliance to command. This experiment was conducted in 1961, a year following the court case of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram formulated the study to answer the question “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974). The investigation was to see whether Germans were specially obedient, under the circumstances, to dominant figures. This was a frequently said explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.

Some individuals know to obey their superior, unless they want to be faced with consequences. However, there are occasions individuals choose to be disobedience because they believe it is the right thing to do for the certain situation that they are faced with. This could in an individual being terminated, dishonorably discharged, or suspended. Knowing the outcome of being insubordinate, individuals are usually obedient, even when they are in a situation that is morally wrong. Kelman and Hamilton, in their article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” examine how Lt. Calley's unquestioning obedience resulted in the massacre of many women and children. Theodore Dalrymple, in his article, “Just Do What The Pilot Tells You,” asserts that there is a balance between when one should be obedient to orders or one should not be. A movie, A Few Good Men, shows two U.S. Marines, Dawson and Downey, being charged for the murder of a fellow Marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and Lt. Daniel Kaffee represents them as their lawyer. Nicholas Leveillee, in his article, “The Role of Obedience in Society,” asserts that one needs to find a balance between obedience and insubordination, so individuals can maintain their individuality and a stable society. Adam Cohen, in his article, “Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain,” asserts that an

The foundation of today’s society is not in immense chaos or destruction, but rather in an organizational order because of the choice in obedience. As depicted in the movie, “A Few Good Men”, obedience is questioned due to soldiers choosing to obey or not when it presents the case of Lance Cpl. Harold Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey being disciplined for committing a crime, even if they were only following orders. Eric Fromm, a social psychologist and psychoanalyst, furthers points in whether it is permissible to commit a crime under the pretext of obeying orders in his article, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”. Comparatively, Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, addresses obedience overriding

America was widely known as a “melting pot” of sorts for many generations. The country earned its title by accepting immigrants of various cultures and molding, or melting, them into the American lifestyle. However, the “melting pot” idea of America is starting to dissipate. According to a Newsweek Poll on the public, “only 20 percent still think America is a melting pot” (Morganthau and Wolfberg, par.4). As more Americans push away immigrants and create stereotypes against said immigrants, America continues to lose its title as a “melting pot.” There is ethnic friction in America and people have begun to have a hard time assimilating (Morganthau and Wolfberg, par.18). .America is beginning to place a negative outlook on its

In the chapter "The Dilemma of Obedience" of the book Obedience to Authority : An Experimental View, Stanley Milgram explores the concept of obedience to authority, and why people cannot defy authority even the situation is totally conflicting with morality. He introduces his ideas by giving the definition of obedience, and mentions Nazi extermination as an instance of obedience, which contradicts with moral values. According to Milgram, obedience idiosyncratically binds humankind to systems of authority, and links the individual action to political purpose. In terms of observations, obedience accepted as an inveterate behavior inclination, and obeying a system of authority has been comprehended as

Obedience is a behavior deeply ingrained in us. It is often an impulse that overrides ethics and sympathy. There is much evidence of this, including the Holocaust. It was not just a small group of deranged individuals that committed these atrocities, it was people who had blind obedience to authority. The tendency to locate the source of behavior disorders in a particular person or group underestimates the power of situational forces.

Millions of people were killed in Nazi Germany in concentration camps however, Hitler wouldn’t have been able to kill them all, nor could just a handful of people. Obedience is when society influences where/ when an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual, who is usually the authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted in this way. In order to obey authority, the obeying person has to accept that it is legitimate for the command to be made of them. Obedience involves a hierarchy of status. Therefore, the person giving the order has a higher status than the person receiving the order.