Disobedience Erich Fromm Summary

Better Essays
Fancy Title In his 1963 essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” philosopher Erich Fromm argues that disobedience to authority started human history and blind obedience may cause its destruction.
Fromm’s view on obedience to authority is that when we obey authority, even when it goes against our own reasoning and morals, then that obedience is cowardly and destructive while any act affirming individual will and autonomy is an act of freedom. Humanity could easily destroy itself and people wouldn’t think to question the order that did it. From justifies disobedience by using the Biblical example of Adam and Eve and the Greek legend of Prometheus. Fromm believes that human history would not exist if we had always obeyed. We
…show more content…
However, not all disobedience is a virtue. Anyone who only obeys is a slave, while those who only disobey are rebels; they do not act for their own principles. Rebellion is the same as obedience if it is unquestionably followed; people must have a logical thought process behind their actions. Fromm says that obedience is wrong when we go against our logical and moral beliefs by obeying. We should never obey as an act of submission, only as an act of affirmation to our own logic and beliefs.
Fromm believes that the first step towards independence and freedom is doubt. You can’t be free of thought and action if you are following someone else’s actions unquestionably. You must know that you can question authority and actively seek your own choice. Fromm defines obedience as either heteronomous or autonomous obedience. Heteronomous
…show more content…
I grew up with this ideology in my life. Dad taught me to always doubt what I am told and to verify information myself. I am always asking questions and looking for answers. I also agree that it takes courage to hold true to your beliefs in the face of authority. If you don’t have courage or self confidence in what you believe, then you will buckle under the scrutiny of others. However, I also believe that most people are lazy; complacency is easier than defiance, which is why more people don’t rebel. Fromm is also thinking like a philosopher; he enjoys taking himself out of situations, analyzing his options and critically judging himself. Unfortunately, most people do not think this way. People don’t like being judged, which results in people not taking responsibility for their actions. I disagree with how Fromm relies on the comparison of our options to our humanistic conscious, morals and the laws of humanity to guide our actions. What if our values are subpar? If someone has little to no morality and believes that he is bettering the future of humanity with his actions, then according to Fromm’s logic, they have justified themselves by obeying their personal morals and how they interpreted the laws of humanity. This could mean that a seral killer felt that his actions were justified as an act of freedom against authority. Fromm assumes that we have higher standards than the authoritative figure

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Deontology Theory

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages

    It also tells us that we can never use humans as a means to an end, but consider them as unique creatures with human dignity. And finally on categorical imperatives, it dictates us to treat other people as we ought to be treated. Therefore to sum all these we found the collection of social media data, violates the moral law in that the exercise don’t apply morals in both situations. The exercise only focuses on safety and to criminalize somebody, but not considering the innocents and their privacy. The action of collecting social media data is definitely treating people’s information as a means to an end.…

    • 1315 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Separateness Of Persons

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to Nozick this notion is flawed as “to use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice”. To put more plainly, the theory suggests that sacrificing the life of one person in order to maximise overall utility is still immoral, for that person is an individual in their own right and will not benefit from acting in this way. Utilitarianist’s fail to recognise that we are all separate beings in our own right. Instead it treats being’s as mere ‘repositories of…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How you respond to disrespect in everyday life is a proper test of morality. In this test, you’re graded based on your ability to counter improper treatment with respect for no purpose other than its moral correctness. Additionally, the possibility of respecting another individual is obsolete without attempting to visualize their perspective. Understanding one another is the key to mutual respect as well as broadening your moral knowledge. Lastly, uninformed perceptions of others defeat all attempts to respect them as it doesn’t allow for the understanding or empathy of our cohorts.…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cultural relativism says all one has to do is check if their action is in agreement with their societal code to determine if their action is right or wrong. But what if their societal codes are wrong? “Cultural Relativism not only forbids us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it also stops us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 34). Rachels final argument against cultural relativism is that it destroys the idea of moral progress and social change. We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This is because it is based on what the reasonable man finds acceptable for a community to tolerate. With this theory of how morality comes about would allow prejudice and disdain to run our society. Dworkin argues a different way of determining what is immoral for society and believes that emotion is not the way to run our society. Justification beyond what is acceptable for the community is how Dworkin argues how deciding what immorality is should come about. These justifications cannot come from prejudice.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Kant believes that every person has rights and their own autonomy, so lying to them is treating them as a mere thing. There is no valid reason to lie about this action other than the fact Pat most likely regrets it, and fears losing Chris. Therefore, this maxim cannot be applied as a universal law, because it is rationally incoherent to make a maxim a law that is based off of self-interest. Since it cannot be applied universally, and telling Chris the truth would have greater moral worth, it is concluded that according to Kant’s Categorical Imperative Pat should tell Chris that she cheated out of respect and to follow her duty to him as his significant…

    • 1356 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Teaching Objectivism to the courtroom, Rearden is attacking Collectivism and Altruism by accepting reality; that one must produce for their own self-interest in order to pursue their own happiness and prosperity; anything outside those motives are illogical and immoral. This moral code he is condemning breaks the law of existence: “A is A (1038)”. If A is not A, a person’s sole motive to live is not for himself, rather, to live for others. This premise denies reality, reason, and logic in place of faith, sacrifice, and force. When Rearden declares “The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!” he condemns the irrational value system that promotes using oneself as a sacrificial animal and its methods of gaining control: by debilitating…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How is it that people are to follow through with something without considering the consequences? Immanuel Kant argues that we as people should not act for reasons because if we do, we will be self-contradicting ourselves. He believes that we are being morally irrelevant if we base are wrong doings or right doings with consequences before we choose to do the action. He believes we should be willing to accomplish our duties and tasks without worrying about the aftermath of an action. Kant believes it should be a requirement for us to obey the moral law because it is a noble thing to do.…

    • 1804 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Which Pojamn rules as impossible through a subjective lens, then Pojman posits that conventionalism cannot possibly work to resolve cross-cultural issue through the lens of conventionalism (Fieser 49). He postulates that there is a better suited ethical theory. Which he affirms is moral objectivism, the view that there exists as least one moral principle that all societies and cultures can adhere to. Pojman attempts to prove that there is a universally valid moral principle that is binding on all rational agents and he posits that if an individual does not adhere to this principle, this individual is stupid and…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Because of this Sartre claimed that we are “Condemned to be free.” Sartre's views may be viewed as liberating and logical, but our knowledge of the world firmly supports that we may not be as free as he artistically expressed. Sartre believed that all men are free. He held that we do not make our choices because of a deity’s commands. Sartre believes in no god. Additionally, Sartre maintained that we do not make our decisions because of our nature or our nurture (two of the main deterministic arguments).…

    • 1057 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays