The Pros And Cons Of Disobedience

837 Words 4 Pages

Whether it 's an adult or a five years old kid, humans have always had to make decisions of whether to obey or disobey authority. In the beginning of time in many religions, the first two humans, Adam and Eve, had to decide whether to obey or disobey God. This decision has consistently shaped history. For example, when the first humans disobeyed God, they were made to leave The Garden of Eden and come down to Earth. Though disobedience has been thought of a vice, it is a normal human behavior. In many circumstances such as Adam and Eve’s, humans have natural tendency to disobey. Some circumstances even have the requirement of disobedience. Though it is not looked upon as a virtue, disobedience is required characteristic in order
…show more content…
Fromm had the interesting view on disobedience. He described the very first act of disobedience as Adam and Eve disobeying God by eating the forbidden fruit. How Fromm differentiated from others with this Biblical story was that he believed that the disobedience of Adam and Eve led them to the right path. According to Fromm, “the act of disobedience set Adam and Eve free and opened their eyes.” Ultimately, by disobeying human history began. In addition, Fromm made another interesting point of how obedience to authority would lead to the end of human history. Theoretically, a person could have the ability to blow up the earth with nuclear bombs by obeying authority. Even though obedience may appear be occurring when an individual is under submission, Fromm explains that this is not always the case. Teachers and parents are authorities that are obeyed, but they have a relationship where do what is best for the individual who is obeying. Most often authority wants people to obey out of fear. This is because it creates fear to disobey, guaranteeing more secure authoritative power. I agree with Fromm’s view of obedience. He makes rational arguments that show how vital it is to have the ability to …show more content…
He practiced this idea when he did not receive the right to legal protests. He accepted the consequences and served time in jail. King distinguished between a just law and an unjust law. Martin Luther King explained that "an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law." Just laws are morally correct and King advocates following these laws. King explains that unjust laws should be confronted, whether by a legal protest or by civil disobedience as long as it is nonviolent. The first of King’s four steps of a nonviolent campaign is negotiation. Before taking any sort of nonviolent direct action, negotiation must be tried first. Negotiation must be tried first because it will save people from disobedience and, as a result, the possibility of going to jail. If negotiation fails, nonviolent direct action must be done. In comparison to negotiation, nonviolent direct action is more efficient and effective because it causes tension and a crisis. The four steps of King’s nonviolent campaign are: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self purification; and direct action. I agree with Martin Luther King’s ideology of disobeying with nonviolence. He clearly states the reasons of why nonviolence must be used and further explains the concept of disobedience to

Related Documents