A Comparative Analysis of Ross and Nisbett’s “The Power of Situations” and Fromm’s “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”
Introduction
Ross and Nisbett disagree with Fromm about the causes for obedience or disobedience to authority. It states in the introduction to “The Power of Situations”: “Erich Fromm conceives of obedience and disobedience as products of one’s character or of one’s moral choices” (627). This is suggesting that Fromm believes a person will obey or disobey based on their personality traits. He states: “All martyrs of religious faiths, of freedom, and of science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity, and of reason” (623). People …show more content…
People will not conform to the ideas of the leaders of society if their personal beliefs differ from those of the leaders. If they accept the rule of authority it is because they agree with the opinions of those they see to be in authority. This will cause them to do what they believe to be right. However, Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett take a contrasting view to Fromm’s ideas. They claim in “The Power of Situations”: “People’s inflated belief in the importance of personality traits and dispositions, together with their failure to recognize the importance of situational factors in affecting behavior, has been termed the “fundamental attribution error” (629). Ross and Nisbett are stating that personality traits have no influence on whether a person will obey or not. Instead, they suggest that what a person will do is dependent on the situation. The circumstances the person is in determines how they will respond in a certain position. This is quite …show more content…
In the introduction to Fromm’s essay it states: “His thoughts on nuclear annihilation may seem dated in these days of post-Cold War cooperation, but it is worth remembering that Fromm wrote his essay just after the Cuban missile crisis, when fears of a third world war ran high” (621). Fromm wrote his article directly after a major crisis in the world. This situation affected his view on life and the world in general. Also, he was the only author of the article. As a result, there was only one person’s opinion on the topic. He did use other people’s ideas but he had the opportunity to chose which concepts he wished to use. However, Ross and Nisbett wrote their article in more recent times. They were not in a time of conflict or tense feelings when they wrote their essay. Because of this, they probably did not have the same view of the world. Also, the view they expressed in their article was affected by both of them. Unlike in “Obedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, there were two authors to “The Power of Situations”. Both authors probably contributed to the essay. There was not just one opinion expressed, so this makes the two readings quite different from one another. Both the number of authors and the situations the authors were in impacts the two
Introduction
Ross and Nisbett disagree with Fromm about the causes for obedience or disobedience to authority. It states in the introduction to “The Power of Situations”: “Erich Fromm conceives of obedience and disobedience as products of one’s character or of one’s moral choices” (627). This is suggesting that Fromm believes a person will obey or disobey based on their personality traits. He states: “All martyrs of religious faiths, of freedom, and of science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity, and of reason” (623). People …show more content…
People will not conform to the ideas of the leaders of society if their personal beliefs differ from those of the leaders. If they accept the rule of authority it is because they agree with the opinions of those they see to be in authority. This will cause them to do what they believe to be right. However, Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett take a contrasting view to Fromm’s ideas. They claim in “The Power of Situations”: “People’s inflated belief in the importance of personality traits and dispositions, together with their failure to recognize the importance of situational factors in affecting behavior, has been termed the “fundamental attribution error” (629). Ross and Nisbett are stating that personality traits have no influence on whether a person will obey or not. Instead, they suggest that what a person will do is dependent on the situation. The circumstances the person is in determines how they will respond in a certain position. This is quite …show more content…
In the introduction to Fromm’s essay it states: “His thoughts on nuclear annihilation may seem dated in these days of post-Cold War cooperation, but it is worth remembering that Fromm wrote his essay just after the Cuban missile crisis, when fears of a third world war ran high” (621). Fromm wrote his article directly after a major crisis in the world. This situation affected his view on life and the world in general. Also, he was the only author of the article. As a result, there was only one person’s opinion on the topic. He did use other people’s ideas but he had the opportunity to chose which concepts he wished to use. However, Ross and Nisbett wrote their article in more recent times. They were not in a time of conflict or tense feelings when they wrote their essay. Because of this, they probably did not have the same view of the world. Also, the view they expressed in their article was affected by both of them. Unlike in “Obedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, there were two authors to “The Power of Situations”. Both authors probably contributed to the essay. There was not just one opinion expressed, so this makes the two readings quite different from one another. Both the number of authors and the situations the authors were in impacts the two