Dawson and Downey were inseparable throughout the movie and acted together in performing the Code Red. They both showed immense respect for the military organization. Throughout the movie both men appear in their impeccably clean and pressed uniforms. They stand at respectful attention in the presence of superiors. When interviewed in their cell by Lieutenant Kaffee, Dawson repeats that his allegiance is to the military code of “Unit, Corp, God, Country” (A Few) . The military categories of Unit and Corp supersede any other bond. Dawson and Downey adhered to this loyalty when they received an order that came from the military organization, it was easy for them to show their loyalty to it by following the order. According to Sartwell, bureaucracies …show more content…
By doing this they freed themselves from any sense of responsibility. As in Milgrim’s experiment, Dawson and Downey believed the person in authority held the responsibility for the Code Red and they were merely the conduit for the authority to act ( 87). Although they both held the military in the highest regard, it was clear that Dawson was struggling at times with obedience. He had disobeyed a previous order to give a fellow Marine under a Code Red only water and vitamins. He secretly gave the marine food and was passed up for a promotion because of that choice ( A Few). Dawson was conflicted with following his authoritarian conscience and his humanistic conscience. According to Fromm, authoritarian conscience is followed when we desire to please an authority figure, and humanistic conscience is followed when our desire to act humanely wins out (126). Dawson understood that giving food to the Marine was a kind act even though it was forbidden .This goes against Sartwell who argues that people obey authority in order to protect themselves even when it conflicts with their ethics (118). Dawson was willing to gamble his promotion by giving food to the
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.
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 United States Army has been a leader in military prowess on the world stage since its inception in 1775, and with such a record, it is reasonably assumed that there must be solid foundation within the organization working to maintain the high level of performance. The Noncommissioned Officer Corps is one institution within the Army that serves as a large portion of this foundation that makes it the fighting force that it has always been, and the noncommissioned officers have been an integral piece since the very inception of the Army. The Prussian General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, organizer of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps, encapsulated this idea when he coined the noncommissioned officer (NCO) as the backbone of the Army. (Arms, 1991) In an Army that is continuously adjusting to world around it while maintaining its status as the military leader to all other nations, the Noncommissioned Officer Corps has always provided the platform for continuity through a growing rank system based on its original core, an evolving training program to develop effective leaders, and a creed that moves us forward while remembering the rich history of the corps that came before us.
The question of why these Marines obeyed the “Code Red” may be answered by Stanley Milgram’s conclusions from his experiment on obedience. When asked by Kaffee, while...
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
In “ Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments On Obedience” by Diana Baumrind, and in “Obedience” by Ian Parker, the writers claim that Milgram’s Obedience is ethically wrong and work of evil because of the potential harm that the subjects of the experiment had. While Baumrind’s article focused only on the Subjects of the experiment, Parker’s article talked about both immediate and long term response to experiment along with the reaction of both the general public and Milgram’s colleagues, he also talks about the effect of the experiment on Milgram himself. Both articles discuss has similar points, they also uses Milgram’s words against him and while Baumrind attacks Milgram, Parker shows the reader that experiment
In a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, American psychologist Stanley Milgram, sought to examine the relationship between obedience and authority in order to understand how Nazi doctors were able to carry out experiments on prisoners during WWII. While there are several theories about Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. In chapter 9 of Human Kindness and The Smell of Warm Croissant, Ogien claims that “what determines behavior is not character but other factors tied to situation” (Ogien 120). The purpose of this essay is not to interpret the results of the Milgram experiments. Instead this essay serves to argue why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s
A man is running late to work one day when he passes by a homeless person asking for help. This man and many others usually consider this particular man to be generous, but since he is late, he ignores the homeless person and continues on his way. One can assume that if he had the time, he would have helped. Does that matter, though, seeing as in that situation, he did not in fact help? Scenarios like this supports Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett’s idea that it is the situation that influences a person’s behavior, not he or she’s individual conscience. Although a person’s individual conscience could play a part in how one behaves in a given scenario, ultimately, the “situational variable” has more impact on the actions of the person than he or she’s morals.
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
The end of World War I, according to some European historians, occurred on May 8, 1945 or V-E Day. A day marking the change of the world’s enemy from Nazi Germany to Communist Russia. Fears of Communism, the totalitarian government of Soviet Russia, were invited through the use of propaganda in the media by the United States government. Illustrating this type of propaganda is the motion picture, The Red Menace released in 1949 by Republic Motion Pictures provides acumens of the fears and concerns on the minds of Americans during a period in America’s history known today as the Cold War.
Dalrymple starts his essay by stating that some people view opposition to authority to be principled and also romantic (254). The social worker Dalrymple mentions on the airplane with him is a prime example that certain people can be naturally against authority, but she quickly grants authority to the pilot to fly the plane (255). Dalrymple also mentions his studies under a physician and that Dalrymple would listen to her because she had far greater expanse of knowledge than him (256). Ian Parker writes his essay explaining the failed logic with Stanley Milgram’s experiment and expounds on other aspects of the experiment. One of his points is the situation’s location which he describes as inescapable (238). Another focus of Parker’s article is how Milgram’s experiment affected his career; the experiment played a role in Milgram’s inability to acquire full support from Harvard professors to earn tenure (234).
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).
The two Marines did not understand why they were charged with his murder, claiming, “We didn’t do anything wrong.” They claimed that they were only following orders from a superior. To explain the Marines’ behaviors, Milgram would argue that the Marines fell to the pressures of authority. In the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram tests the psychological affects on the “teacher” rather than on the “learner” (Milgram 78) About two-thirds of the test subjects were completely obedient and used the 450-volt shocks, and all of the participants used the painful 300-volt shock (Milgram 80). With these surprising results, Milgram deducts that many of these test subjects carried out these actions because of the authority figure in the room. Coming to a final conclusion, Milgram states that ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being (Milgram 86). Obedience to authority is ingrained in children from the day they are born, and they are raised to be obedient and this is why many people are obedient. With Milgram’s conclusion, it would be logical to assume that he would argue that the influence of authority is why Dawson and
level of Precedence and standards in the formation. The roles of the non-commissioned officer is