Rick Gorski

English 101

Professor Stepanek

7, October, 2011

Critique for Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem

Erich Fromm wrote the essay Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem discussing his views on how blind obedience is destructive to all of mankind. Fromm believes that blind obedience to unnecessary orders by authority is not by any means superior, but rather horrific in every way possible. I agree with Fromm in that someday, a very long time from now, our world will end by blind obedience to a country or government. However, when Fromm wrote his essay expressing his views in 1963 he thought 5 years after that the human race would just be cut off. These views were of great concern because it was right after the Cuban Missile Crisis and fears of a world war three ran high. I do not believe that anytime soon there will be a war bad enough to terminate the world. I do believe, however that when that time does come, which it will, it will most certainly exterminate the human race.

Erich Fromm's take on obedience to authority is that human history will soon be terminated by one simple act if the world continues to obey unnecessary orders. The biblical myth of Adam and Eve proves that man had to disobey an order, of God, in order to become fully human and to create the human race. The Prophets believed that man was right in disobeying because they were not necessarily punished for their "sins", but rather forced to leave their present paradise and to create their own, "new" paradise. There would be no human history if it were not for disobeying authority. To this day, man has evolved by acts of disobedience. Fromm believes that if disobeying authority is what formed the beginning of human history then obedience is what is going to terminate human history. Obedience is not always a vice, but if an order that someone is supposed to obey is not morally or ethically right then disobedience shall be the outcome of the situation.

Obedience to Fromm is not an act of submission, but one of affirmation. The only way to determine which is which for someone else is to understand the concepts of conscience and authority. Conscience expresses phenomena distinct from each other. Authority is power outside of oneself. "Authoritarian Conscience" gets crossed with "humanistic conscience" and alters the mind's ability to judge oneself. Fromm's obedience for himself controls what he worships, how he feels, what he decides, and how he may "sin".

Courage is not the only characteristic one must have to disobey because in order to disobey, one must protest what they believe and have reasonable points to prove what they are saying. In order to become free through acts of disobedience, a person needs to learn to say no to power. It is hard for many to say "no" because for the longest time obedience has been considered an act of virtue and disobedience with sin. Having the right attitude toward what is truly right and wrong to a person will overcome that point and will be able to say "no". The case of Adolf Eichmann, according to Fromm, is one that proves that he is an example of the human race. The power to obey and disobey authority may be the only thing that stands between the rest of the world for mankind and the end of human civilization.

The information that Erich Fromm used in his article was not completely accurate because he stated that by 1973, at the latest, the human race would have destroyed civilization and all life upon earth. It is now 2008 and the world is still intact with mankind and living organisms of a variety of species. It did not help that the only reason for this essay to be written was out of fear that a third world war was on its way. Erich Fromm was disturbed by the missile crisis and jumped to all kinds of conclusions that have yet to take place.

I think that it is necessary for Americans to expect the worst outcome possible when it comes to war now because a nuclear war can and will destroy the world and it was not like that in the 1970's. The information that Fromm points out is significant to people now because with our society the way that it is today, ahead of every other country, arrogant, and capable of mass destruction with nuclear weapons, we need to be aware of what could happen at any given time to us and our families. Fromm uses words such as conscience and explains the different types of conscience like authoritarian conscience, the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please and afraid of displeasing, to prove his point use the appeal of logos. Fromm uses appeals that allow readers to comprehend the super-ego as obedience to power outside of oneself.

As for appealing to ethos, in the beginning of the essay, before Fromm jots down his ideas into essay-form, there is background information that tells the readers such as myself that Erich Fromm was one of the twentieth century's distinguished writers and thinkers. This appeal lets me trust what he is saying, but still make opinions and draw conclusions of how I can view his points in my own way. Appealing to pathos was clearly expressed in paragraph seventeen of Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem when Fromm uses a symbolic situation for the case of Adolf Eichmann to explain that every person in society is like Hitler. He uses this to upset his readers, so that his point of obeying unjust laws and rules is proved.

The information that Fromm uses is fair and unfair depending upon which way you look at it. It is fair to the religious aspect because when he speaks of Adam and Eve, anyone that believes what the bible says would know exactly where he is coming from. It is 100% true according to the bible. He adds no more and says no less than what he actually means. For someone that is not religious this essay would serve no purpose and make no sense to them as to why Erich Fromm thinks that the world is going to come to an abrupt end. His strong points come in the beginning of paragraph 2, "Adam and Eve, living in the Garden of Eden, were part of nature; they were in harmony with it, yet did not transcend it" (683). A weak point comes into play in paragraph 16 when he says is "There is another reason why it is difficult to dare to disobey, to say 'no' to power", and it is the exact same as the point before it: obedience is a virtue and disobedience is a sin. Therefore, the essay is fair depending upon which way you translate what Fromm is saying. Everyone's point of view will be different.

Overall, I agree with Fromm when he says that all of mankind will be destroyed by blind obedience to authority because with the way that our society functions today, they almost worship the government because they think they have to. Granted, the government runs our country and without it our world would be chaos, which is why there are such things as third world countries, but if we would do things because it is what we feel right and go about it in the right ways, no one would "disobey" anyone and everyone could be happy. Erich Fromm proved his point of how blind obedience is appalling to mankind because it is going to someday end the world and human civilization. He uses biblical myths to help people understand that the birth of mankind was through disobedience. However, he tries to use more than that and no actual proof comes out of it. Erich Fromm definitely discussed distinctions among varieties of obedience and convinced me that if blind obedience to authority that declared absolute nonsense does not seize, then the human race will destroy civilization and all life upon earth.

Works Cited

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard J. Rosen. Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Boston: Longman, 2011. 683-87. Print.