The Controversy Of Contracting And Obeying With Authority

Obedience to people in authority is a deep-rooted trait that we all possess by virtue of our upbringing, and as Milgram put it, “it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others” (Milgram 1974). This trait is exhibited every day in family circles, workplace and school. People are most likely to obey instructions from people they perceive their authority to be legal or moral. We see people obeying their pastors, leaders in various societies and other people they see as higher to them; and they obey anything they are being told even if it involves killing another human being. They justify their actions, however wrong, on obedience to authority.

The particular focus of this essay is on how terms are implied. This is central because the courts intervene and impose implied terms when they believe that in addition to the terms the parties have expressly agreed on, other terms must be implied into the contract. Gillies argued that the courts have become more interventionist in protecting the rights of contracting parties thereby encroaching upon the notion of freedom of contract. The doctrine of freedom of contract is a prevailing philosophy which upholds the idea that parties to a contract should be at liberty to agree on their own terms without the interference of the courts or legislature. Implied terms can be viewed as a technique of construction or interpretation of contracts. It has been argued that the courts are interfering too much in their approach to determine and interpret the terms of a contract. The aim of this essay is to explore this argument further and in doing so consider whether freedom of contract is lost due to courts imposing implied terms. The essay will outline how the common law implies terms. The final part of the essay will examine whether Parliament, by means of a statute, or terms implied by custom restrict freedom in a contract. An overall conclusion on the issue will be reached.

Social contract theory (or contractarianism) is a concept used in philosophy, political science and sociology to denote an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract; such violation would signify a problematic attempt to return to the state of nature. It has been often noted, indeed, that social contract theories relied on a specific anthropological conception of man as either "good" or "evil". Thomas

Second, society teaches us to conform by not thinking for ourselves. We are simply told how to solve a problem or accomplish a task. We are never taught why

After reading the article “The Meaning of Social Control” by Peter Berger I agree that social control is present in our daily lives trying to get people to conform in different situations. There are several different kinds of social control from violence, to gossip to even being shunned from a community. In the article it even states, that social control “...refers to the various means used by a society to bring its recalcitrant members back into line. No society can exist without social control (Berger 1).” This quote means without social control people wouldn’t be able to conform to any specific situation which can lead to a lot of issues. Even though conformity in general is perceived as a bad thing it can also be used for good. Like the example given when a police officer gives a person a ticket it teaches the person to not speed or they would get into trouble.

“the tendency of people to conform help Society function smoothly in many ways... For example, enable Safe Transportation” this quote shows that Conformity can be helpful/good.

Norman Chomsky once wrote “I think it only makes sense to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom.” There is a true feeling of what authority can do if placed in situations that require someone to follow instructions. What happens to someone when they follow the orders of another

Today our society raises us to believe that obedience is good and disobedience is bad. We are taught that we should all do what we’re told and that the people that are disobedient are almost always bad people. Society tells us this, but it is not true. Most people will even be obedient to the point of causing harm to others, because to be disobedient requires the courage to be alone against authority. In Stanley Milgram’s "Perils of Obedience" experiment, his studies showed that sixty percent of ordinary people would agree to obey an authority figure even to the point of severely hurting another human being. (Milgram 347).

No human social organization can function without some degree of obedience to authority, as the alternative would be anarchy leading to total chaos. Hence we find some sort of a hierarchy in both the most underdeveloped and the most civilized societies where certain individuals exercise authority over others. Almost everyone will agree that some degree of authority in certain individuals or groups (and their obedience by other groups) is desirable for the proper functioning of a society. The problem arises when the obedience to authority is taken to extremes. Unfortunately, history has shown that this happens time and again, usually with undesirable results. It is this blind obedience to authority that

Compliance to power is instilled in every one of us from the way we are raised. Individuals have a tendency to obey orders from other individuals on the off chance that they perceive their power as ethically right and/or lawfully based. This reaction to authentic power is found out in a mixture of circumstances, for instance in the family, school, and work environment.

Imagine yourself as a child, permanently being governed by grown-ups. Envision them nagging you about your low grades and sloppy room then forcing you to fix them, and if you didn’t obey their requests, you would suffer the consequences. Consequences can include having certain privileges taken away from you, like not watching your favorite TV show or not indulging in your favorite video game. This would encourage you to improve because obviously, you like having privileges and want them back. Now, imagine if grown-ups were not present. You have the free will to do anything; you can now make your own decisions without grown-ups managing you. Consequently, lack of authority can lead to chaos, disorder, and confusion, as there are no rules to obey.

A moral dilemma that I had faced in my life that continue to cloud my judgement even until this is day is obedience to and how far we will let it reflect on how we let it decide how we live our life. In today 's day and age with the everyone having so many choices on how they can live our lives conflicts with our moral reasons with what is right or wrong and having to outweigh the values of our conflicts. Its makes I question authority and test on how far our obedience from authority and supervisors lays thought us. When we were little most of us were taught that by my parents what was right or wrong and how by simply having these few characteristics a person can have such as stronger, more powerful, and intelligent or just have more experience than you that they are always right.

“The Obligation to Obey: Revision and Tradition” by Joseph Raz explains the issue regarding the relationship between an individual and law. Does a person have the obligation to obey the law? Why does the person have that kind of obligation? The article also talks about the government and whether it has the authority in creating and implementing laws to the society.

Whether one acknowledges it or not we all obey authority in one way or another. It is something that is embedded into us from the day that we are born. We begin to become obedient to our parents, elders, our teachers, law enforcement, the list goes and on. Authority has a major impact on human behavior. This is especially evident in the case of the concentration camps in Germany. There were hundreds if not thousands of people following Hitlers unethical orders, and clearly they outnumbered the one person controlling it all. However, they did not go against him but they simply followed his orders. For a person to obey authority, one has to accept that it is legal, and right for the order to be made of them. It also involves somebody of a higher power or status to be involved in making the commands.

People's thoughts, feelings and behaviors are impressed by being of other people. This is defined as social influence (Allport, 1968). People try to change others’ behavior, thoughts and feelings by different ways. For instance, pressure, command, persuasion are some ways of social influence. There are three types of social influence which are compliance, conformity and obedience. It is called obedience to the type defined by authority. Obedience as one of the forms of social influence is acting according to the order of someone else that is authority. Without such an order, it is assumed that the person will not move in this way (S. A. McLeod, “Obedience to Authority”, 2007).