Essay on The Role of Power in Obedience

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 second reason people obey is called the momentum of compliance. Otherwise known as the ‘foot in the door’ technique, it is usually used by salesmen as they are trying to sell items, they start up with the smaller items and work their way up to the bigger, more costly items. Smith and Mackie (2003) found that similar processes take part in real-life crimes where criminals usually work their way up from smaller crimes to bigger, life threatening crimes. Milgram found that the momentum of compliance was found in his experiment, as the switches were going up in only 15v each time the participant started small and worked their way up to the bigger shocks and then without it actually hitting home, they’ve actually killed someone but they weren’t able to stop. Like the well-known Pringles saying ‘once you pop you can’t stop’.

In this article, “Just Do What the pilot Tells You” Theodore Dalrymple and “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” by Crispin Sartwell express two different viewpoints expressed towards obedience. While both authors are addressing the issue of disobedience, Dalrymple approaches the issue, stating, “Some people think a determined opposition to authority is principled and romantic” (Dalrymple 3) while on the other hand, Sartwell emphasizes that authority, especially hierarchies are the most “evil” thing in our society. Despite the well-executed argument of the two author's, Dalrymple takes a self-centered approach, forcing the reader to agree with his opinion.

“The Perils of Obedience” was written by Stanley Milgram in 1974. In the essay he describes his experiments on obedience to authority. I feel as though this is a great psychology essay and will be used in psychology 101 classes for generations to come. The essay describes how people are willing to do almost anything that they are told no matter how immoral the action is or how much pain it may cause.

The notion of obedience is imperative to the notion of law, and the subject of legal obedience is accepted by virtue of its necessity in the definition of law. The discussion of moral obligation to obey the law, however, raises difficult questions met by various arguments. As a leader of this discussion, Rawls proposes that moral obligation to obey the law is upheld if the system of law is grounded in the principle of fair play.

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

A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both

Anscombe presents her argument by first defining what marks the authority of the state. Once the authority of the state can be identified it can later be determined whether or not it is justified. This justification comes from the performance of a necessary task for the general human need. These necessary tasks cannot be performed unless there is extensive obedience. The state has a right to be obeyed when its authority is based on its performance of the necessary task. This exercise of authority from the state is justified.

concentrates that law is purely used to promote good by the state. Furthermore, law should

Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.

In society, obedience to authority is ingrained in humanity from an early age, causing some individuals to blindly obey orders without contemplating the credibility of the source. In psychoanalyst Erich Fromm’s article “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” he explains that throughout human history obedience has been associated with virtue and disobedience with sin (Fromm 127). Fromm suggests that our conscience is an internalized voice of authority (126). Fromm claims individuals need to distinguish the difference between rational and irrational authority because obedience is effective when individuals want to obey, instead of fearing to disobey (127). Two other authors who examine obedience are Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee

With complete control, a government is capable of committing acts against their citizens, which can be perceived as “something good” from the government’s point of view. Winston Smith feels

We are prone to obey because when we are obedient to an authority it makes us feel safe and protected. We can’t make mistakes because the authority decides for us. We can’t be alone, because the authority watches over us. So, no matter what our behavior is, it can be justified on the ground that we are only following orders, doing what we’re told from above. We can easily be brought to view ourselves as an instrument for carrying out another person’s wishes, and so we no longer feel responsible for our actions. Unfortunately, that can make us feel responsible to the authority, instead of the content of the orders the authority is giving. Morality is still there, but the focus is changed. We feel the need to perform well, out of obligation or duty, to those who are in authority.

According to Cardwell (1996) obedience is a type of social influence whereby somebody acts in response to a direct order from another person. There is an implication the actor is made to respond in a way that they wouldn’t have otherwise done without the order. You are in no doubt when you are obeying an order (explicit). It is obvious when you are following an order and you won’t change your attitudes as you are behaving as instructed. We will always find ourselves in situations in which we are told to do things by other people, for example boss or supervisor at work. Within society we work in a hierarchy. We may disagree or resent the orders we are given even when they are legitimate. It is unlikely we will be given an order or instruction that goes against our conscience or involves us inflicting serious harm on another person.

act in favour of justice yet it is better to follow the law than to