Example research essay topic: Obedience To Authority In The Military - 1,499 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Obedience to Authority in the Military I would like to start by saying that during the US-led operation in Iraq the British and Australian troops were told to use their own judgment in the decision making process of whether or not to shoot in the civilians. They were told that they would not be punished for disobeying the American leaders. Here we see the example of how the personal conscience is used against the obedience to authority, yet generally the obedience to the military authority is unconditional and goes without sayings. It should also be pointed out that during the Vietnam era, a very popular theme in both secular and scholarly writing was the danger of obedience to authority especially military authority. One of the scholars, Mr. Stanley Milgram had found out that a great number of people would be willing to torture others even to the point of ultimate destruction and murder for the cause of some authority (Keijzer, 90).

Thus, Milgram pointed out that obeying authority is immoral by definition. Various war crimes in Vietnam were a result of willingness of some US soldiers to obey the authority blindly. By the same token, a great number of crimes committed by the Nazi troops during the World War II were also caused by the blind faith and obedience. The US military structure on the other hand requires an individual to possess personal freedom and independence while at the same time subordination of one person to his or her group or team (Pawley, 12). At present, the USA does not remember about any unpopular wars and had entered the voluntary military force.

I should also point out the fact that the USA lately emphasized the importance of the individual soldier and his or her autonomy as opposed to the group or his / her commander. In fact, many do say the USA has gone too far, that people have bought the plea for freedom, independence, and autonomy at the expense of proper functioning of the United States armed forces (Gregory, 81). It is believed that discipline, obedience, a sense of group identity that soldiers around the world historically experienced, and the willingness to subordinate personal desires to the good of the whole seem to have weakened over the past decade. Many critics now question whether the USA would be capable of defending itself as a nation even if it possessed large numbers of well-equipped soldiers with the modern technology and toys: the US soldiers are seen by many as psychologically, morally, and spiritually inadequate for the battle. Thus, logically it follows that the USA reemphasize obedience and associated virtues it is armed forces (Gilbert, 32).

Nevertheless, we should also understand that the shift in American attitudes toward obedience to the military reflects a dual tension of pros and cons. The very first tension exists between the personal freedom and autonomy of the individual soldier traditionally valued in the USAand the need for soldiers to subordinate themselves to group goals governed by commanders (Keijzer, 93). The second tension exists between the potential untamed evil that is possible through a misapplied obedience to the military commands and the great benefits to the US society that are possible if the Armed forces of the USA cooperate as obedient citizens. If all Americans do obey, the USA then runs at least some risk of great evil, as in Nazi Germany; but if they do not obey, the USA as a country will lose the opportunity for good that results from working as a group rather than as individuals (Gregory, 87). I personally believe that the two tensions mentioned above in the essay can truly not be resolved, yet they for that reason should never be ignored or neglected. The USA indeed can minimize these tensions that arise in the process of obeying the military authority via knowledge and understanding what morality is (Reese, 154).

Thus, a mature soldier can and usually does come to obedience that is moral and autonomous, yet might refuse to participate in any immoral group activity. Thus, we understand that a mature soldier has a choice of whether or not to obey immoral command. Therefore, it can be speculated that such personal maturity removes any potential tension between persons moral autonomy and persons obedience because each person makes his or her own decision. And because the soldier is capable of making moral decisions, the second tension, noted above, is also alleviated (Cairnes, 50). One should also be aware of the fact that autonomous obedience in the military is a fearful thing to both superiors and subordinates. It is apparent that superiors fear it for two reasons: Obedience is not something that can be imposed; it must be chosen.

Obedience has limits, limits imposed by morality of a soldier (Cottey, 230). At the same time, on the subordinates side, autonomous obedience demands very tough moral decisions from the soldier rather than mere acceptance of previous conditioning by his / her superiors (Keijzer, 96). Unfortunately, as the followers of existentialism remind us, such moral decisions of a soldier in the military and the responsibility associated with these decisions are fearful. The military authority that creates obedience in soldiers cannot be looked on as one that should be obeyed at all costs, simply because in this case the soldiers moral dilemma would remain unresolved.

At the same time, the military authority is not always an expert, and does not always have a better experience, view of things or possesses a better judgment than soldiers do. Military authority does not have to be charismatic. The military authority's power to reward and to punish does not always appear significant simply because the soldiers might strive to disobey without getting caught or because they might believe it is not reasonable for the authority to punish or reward. Thus, the military authority to which the military obedience exists in soldiers is nothing but a special institution that is created to fill the societal role.

The reason why, the military has authority is because the military decisions are societal decisions (Desc, 43). The decisions of a commander of the US armed forces are by default supported by the society, thus the only force that a commander possesses is because of his / her societal function (societal order) and not because of any of his / her personal functions. Thus, the immoral orders of the military commanders should have not power, because they do not represent the society but one person who usurps power. I should also draw the readers attention to the fact that society's acceptance of the military authority and thus civil obedience as its decision procedure makes the authority's decisions authoritative. The question that we all have to ask ourselves, then, is whether there is a moral obligation of people and soldiers to obey such societal authoritative orders that are made regularly (Cairnes, 56).

I will note here that one can see that there is theoretically no moral obligation for people to obey the military authority merely on the grounds that it is authority. (The Mafia chief, Osama bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein are also an authority in the same sense, although in a different society. ) Therefore, we understand that a moral obligation of soldiers to obey must rest on something more than the mere fact of the military authority (Smith, 22). We all understand that obedience in the military is not merely doing what another decides for you to do but rather doing it because it is the decision of an authority. For example, when the robber with a gun orders me to hand over my wallet, I willingly comply; but I do not obey, unless we use "obey" in a very broad sense. Complying with the military orders is a matter of doing what another wants us to door whatever reason we may decide to comply with the order at that time. Obedience in the military, on the other hand, is a specific variety of compliance that is based on authority. Thus, we see that an authority is a necessary condition for obedience in the military.

Whenever the soldier obeys, she / he does so because someones decision in the military is authoritative. Bibliography: Keijzer, N, Military Obedience, McGraw Hill, 2002. Smith, Leonard, Between Mutiny and Obedience, NY Random House, 2001. Cairnes, William, The Military Maxims of Napoleon, Prentice Hall, 2002. Desc, Michael, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment, Oxford university Press, 2000. Pawley, Margaret, In Obedience to Instructions: Find With the Soe in the Mediterranean, Prentice Hall, 2002.

Reese, Roger, The Soviet Military Experience: A History of the Soviet Army, 1917 - 1991 (Warfare and History), penguin books, 2000. Gilbert, Gustave, Nuremberg Diary, McGraw Hill, 2001. Cottey, Andrew, Democratic Control of the Military in Post communist Europe: Guarding the Guards (One Europe or Several), NY Random House, 2002. Gregory, Shaun, Nuclear Command and Control in NATO: Nuclear Weapons Operations and the Strategy of Flexible Response, Penguin books, 2001.

Research essay sample on Obedience To Authority In The Military