Therefore, people forget their morals and defy their personality. Shea states people can change their morals due to the effects of power (Shea). Fromm claims that an individual’s decisions reflect his or her conscious because their conscious is what brings them “back to ourselves, to our humanity” (Fromm 126). Fromm would state that Jessup believes he could do anything because of the power he holds; therefore, Jessup allows power to rise above his conscious. This demonstrates how easily authority can corrupt an individual. Jessup knew Santiago would physically not be able to handle the “code red”, yet power overrules his morals (A Few Good Men). Fromm would admit that Jessup’s authority trumped his morals, yet also believes that Dawson and …show more content…
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 …show more content…
A Few Good Men, “The Stanford Prison Experiment”, and “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” acknowledge the fact that most individuals will continue to obey orders in the future. “Why Power Corrupts” and “Human Obedience: The Myth of Blind Conformity” express that people become passive, which in turn causes individuals to always obey. People bow down to authority allowing individuals to take advantage of others. This causes humans to forget their morals and only listen to commands given by higher authority. Can people disobey orders they are morally against? Will people continue to allow others to alter their decisions? Authority will continue to be a problem in civilization; how we react and utilize the power is what will change
A social institution can shape individual behaviors because it can get someone used to having their life controlled daily. If someone’s actions are controlled and limited daily, they will get used to it and will seek to continue being controlled. For example, if one is used to receiving orders they will continue following through with the orders because that is what they were trained to do. In the article, “Anybody’s Son Will Do”, Dyer describes ways total institutions shape individual behaviors by explaining the method marines use to recruit new soldiers for war. When joining the marines, the methods marines use to shape the behavior of civilians begins at Parris Island when the civilians are intentionally picked up late in the day to ensure that when they arrive at Parris Island, they are tired enough to receive shock treatment.
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
As depicted in A Few Good Men, authors Fromm, Dalrymple, and Szegedy-Maszak provide evidence as to why blind obedience influences individuals’ motives, such as fear and trust, to examine how unjust authority pollutes a person’s ability to
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.
Comparative Analysis Obedience to authority and willingness to obey an authority against one’s morals has been a topic of debate for decades. Stanley Milgrim, a Yale psychologist, conducted a study in which his subjects were commanded by a person in authority to initiate lethal shocks to a learner; his experiment is discussed in detail in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgrim 77). Milgrim’s studies are said to be the most “influential and controversial studies of modern psychology” (Levine). While the leaner did not actually receive fatal shocks, an actor pretended to be in extreme pain, and 60 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, despite evidence displaying they believed what they were doing was harming another human being (Milgrim 80). Likewise, Dr. Zimbardo, a professor of psychology at Stanford University, conducted an experiment, explained in his article “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” in which ten guards were required to keep the prisoners from escape and under control.
In CrimJ 100 we were talking a lot about how to court system works and the different severities of sentences. I was asked to watch the movie A Few Good Men, I was able to watch it on Popcorn time. The purpose of watching this movie was so I could relate what I was learning in class to this movie. The movie is about two marines; LCcl Harold and PFC Downie were ordered a code red on a fellow marine that was requesting to leave his company. The Commanding Officer Nathan Jessep ordered the code red to “train” the marine to get use to the conditions in Cuba. The code red back fired on the commander when Santiago died from the code red. The commander tried to stay under the radar and erase his name from getting tracked back to him. The protagonist Lt. Daniel Kaffee has to prove the Lt. Kendrick called the code red on Santiago. Another main character in this film is Lt. Cdr. Galloway, she is PFC Downie’s attorney for this case. There are many themes that we have covered in class that occur in the movie. This is great representation of how a real court case would play out. The movie showcase key themes, such as Plea bargains, Responsibilities of the Criminal Defence Attorneys, Responsibilities of the Procsector, Bringing in a witness, and also showcases judges in a courtroom scenario.
In reality, if there is a law, it needs to be enforced. However, a question arises about how the law should be enforced to avoid injustice. The three storylines show how the law is forced, for instance in case of the state of Florida (“Gideon’s Trumpet”), sometimes, however, in the form of abusing power as presented by Angelo (“Measure for Measure”) and Col. Nathan R. Jessep (“A Few Good Men”). Regardless of all the cases of strict enforcement of the law, unfair rules, and abusive behaviors, the role models of the stories were persistent enough to achieve justice and make changes for all.
Through my research and findings of obedience to authority this ancient dilemma is somewhat confusing but needs understanding. Problem with obedience to authority has raised a question to why people obey or disobey and if there are any right time to obey or not to obey. Through observation of many standpoints on obedience and disobedience to authority, and determined through detailed examination conducted by Milgram “The Perils Of Obedience,” Doris Lessing “Group Minds” and Shirley Jackson “The Lottery”. We have to examine this information in hopes of understanding or at least be able to draw our own theories that can be supported and proven on this subject.
...g factors such as fear of consequences for not obeying, human nature’s willingness to conform, perceived stature of authority and geographical locations. I also believe that due to most individual’s upbringings they will trust and obey anyone in an authoritative position even at the expense of their own moral judgment. I strongly believe that Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a turning point for the field of social psychology and they remind us that “ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process”. Despite these findings it is important to point out it is human nature to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow human beings. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but rather contradictory ethical inclinations that lie deep inside human beings.
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
Introduction 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 neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
In the film “ A Few Good Men” the rule of law and fundamental justice were not followed by Lance Cpl. Harold and Pfc. Louden Downey. The rule of law was disobeyed as soon as Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden acted above the law. They committed a criminal offence and disregarded Pvt. Santiago's rights. Although, the orders were given by superior officer, Col. Nathan Joseph, the fact of the matter still remains the same, a crime was committed . Pvt. Santiago’s rights were not taken into consideration, which inevitably lead to his death. Although Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden clearly disregarded the rules of law and acted above the law, procedural justice was still exercised. Both Cpl. Lance and Pfc. Louden were given rights to a fair trial and the
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
Obedience and disobedience play a huge role in our lives as humans. We begin with disobedience. With that, though, we develop the ability to choose to obey or disobey. In doing this, we obey the highest calling that we must: human nature. No matter how we modernize as a society, the primal instincts and decisions that rise up in every human being are very much the same as they have always been.
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.