Obedience is a component of the foundation of a society. With the lack of obedience, naught would be present but anarchy and chaos. With the lack of stability, productivity as well as the well-being of citizens becomes non-existent. Due to the fact, a person has to question himself or herself how an obedient society can look like without losing its personality because a society without personality does not incorporate individuals but of mindless whines, unthinkably implementing commands for the hive’s queen. Asc, Milgram and Zimbardo carried out experiments and determined that human personality is usually undermined by the blind obedience individuals feel towards humans in a powerful position (Perlstadt, 2014). In order for humans to sustain their personality as well as stable society, equilibrium between insubordination and obedience has to be established.
Obedience is destructive when it can result into mental or physical destruction. If an individual is given the opportunity to cause pain to another, the decision that should be made is disobedience in its form of insubordination. In the event a person follows the authority’s instruction and causes pain to an individual, they then lose their individuality as well as the capability to make decisions on their individual basis. At the moment a person follows blindly directives of an authoritative figure, that individual may conform to the majority in case the superior commands several individuals (Perry, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the experiment by Asch, he established that the size of the group affected whether subjects would conform to certain given conditions. The bigger the group the more individuals would conform, however to an extent. If the subject is composed of one partner, they would emphasize their personality more often. If individuals could come together and emphasize their independence together, their outcome would be much stronger as opposed to an individual endeavoring the same. Asch was hopeful that individuals appreciate their independence more as well as would come together for the course. Being totally obedient is similar to being guided by the figures of authority. Individuals will steadily start to be disobedient so that they sustain higher grasp on their own capacity to refrain from feeling helpless (Perry, 2015)
Milgram arrived at a confusing conclusion that individuals have the potential to carry out evil when instructed. His research, carried out by threatening individuals to continue to provide highly powerful shocks to persons test subjects, is the apex of dangerous obedience. He states that had the experiment not been an act, several individuals would have gone to higher level as he instructed and seriously destroyed and even killed the subjects. In the sentence, Milgram mandated the teachers to endure mental distress by making them think they were initiating harm to the learners. He knowingly pushed the teachers past the threshold of obedience (Perlstadt, 2014).
According to Zimbardo’s simulated prison shows a duration of obedience as well as disobedience, the prisoners endeavored to be obedient due to fear of reprisal by the guards. However, even in the case of the convicts being obedient, the guards would attack them physically and verbally and instruct them to perform degrading work, for example cleaning toilets by use of bare hands. Since the inmates were treated badly, they endeavored to reemphasize their personality by rebelling against the prison guards. When the guards exerted their authority to make sure the inmates clean the toilets, they started abusing their power with the hope that inmates would be obedient as well as provide the guard with sick gratification. The guards struggled to push the inmates to the point where they carry out the activity they were assigned without thinking, however the inmates rebelled and tried to revolt authority of the guards and confidence (Perlstadt, 2014).
Eichmann is one of the greatest identifiable and well documented Nazi generals. During Eichmann trial, his defense was that he was primarily conducting orders from individuals above him. By employing the defense, he tried to dissociate himself from the blame. He filled out the paper work obediently that was accountable for the deaths of majority of the Jews merely due to superiors ordering him to implement the orders. It was a belief in Eichmann that since he was not directly accountable for providing the killing blows, he could distant the responsibility due to his superiors directing him to do so. In the event society follows similar direction as that of Eichmann, individuals would be tools if not nothing, carrying out the superior’s needs without thinking irrespective of the harm it may cause to people. Blind obedience leading to pain as well as suffering is damaging and do not deserve the followers. Individuals have their rights to independence and should holistically perceive on a wider perspective on what they have been asked to conduct with their superiors (Miller, 2014).
A legal defense is in place for those individuals who attempt to escape blame stating that they were instructed by orders and had to follow them, that is, the Nuremberg Defense. The defense was popularized at the times of Nazi war trials. It is a usual defense by low-level troops and corporations. Corporations employ the Nuremberg Defense when they attend courts for reverse prejudicial lawsuits, since the government did instruct them to hire extra minorities. Moreover, CIA members, for example, ex-Milan station, Chief Robert Seldon, argue they were just following orders from above or Horton. Media attention was shifted to the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq at the beginning of 2004. Reports highlighted that, soldiers were just following instructions of private contractors as commanded by the department of defense, United States. Allegation of psychological, sexual, and physical abuse, incorporating rape, torture, homicide and sodomy conducted by military individuals initiated an investigation into the prison. Several soldiers stated that the abuse were authorized by their commanders, thus, shifting the blame away from the soldiers (Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse). The soldiers who Americans have got a lot of respect stuck to the unconditional authority of their commandants to carry out inhumane activities on inmates of war. Thus, the soldiers do not offer a good role model to Americans. Human race is described by their actions towards other people. Causing harm to other persons due to being ordered by superiors is not a course to follow as a directive. If an individual has the choice to either emphasize their individuality or follow orders, the decision is based on them to make (Perlstadt, 2014).
In conclusion, Milgram’s research is useful, however, the experiment overshadow ethical virtues. Thus, obedience to authority is an individual decision. In some circumstances, individuals may obey authoritative persons due to frights, thinking that if they go against the virtue of obedience they would be punished. Therefore, in order to escape punishment, they carry out the orders without a second thought. In the case of Nazi, their obedience was founded on morals. However, it is clear that the Nazi disliked the Jews and had a feeling they were to be killed. Further, the Nazi military were not supposed to conduct their action and since their hate towards the Jews is what they grew up knowing, they had a feeling it was the best decision to carry out.
References
Miller, A. G. (2014). The explanatory value of Milgram's obedience experiments: A contemporary appraisal. Journal of Social Issues , 70 (3), 558-573.
Perlstadt, H. (2014, July). The Making of Obedience to Authority: From Binet To Asch To Milgram. In XVIII ISA World Congress of Sociology (July 13-19, 2014) . Isaconf.
Perry, G. (2015). Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority experiments. Theory & Psychology , 25 (5), 622-638.
