Introduction
Questions about human nature and behavior constantly arise when examining historical events. As people ask themselves and others why some atrocious or seemingly impossible actions have been committed, the easiest explanation is often to blame “bad apples” – individuals with skewed morality or inherent badness of character. Nonetheless, many groundbreaking experiments have shown that this reasoning is unrealistic – it is more likely that people act immorally due to factors and influences in their environment that shape their decisions.
The connection between obedience and morality is demonstrated in experiments described in Milgram’s (1973) “The Perils of Obedience” and Zimbardo’s (2008) “The Psychology of Evil,” as well as in videos by Hank Green, “Social Thinking” and “Aggression vs. Altruism.” Morality and authority are intertwined: one influences the other, and the two coexist in the world. In the article “Could We Live in a World Without Rules,” Chater (2020) shows some positive examples of these ideas working together. People may be both moral and obedient when the rules are established with mutual consent and authority maintains a level of personal and shared responsibility.
Morality and Obedience Revealed in Experiments
Various studies of human nature in situations of obedience showcase the interconnection between morality and authority. One of the core experiments was conducted by Milgram (1973): he recruited “teachers” who, under the control of “scientists,” were to administer electric shocks of increasing intensity. Contrary to predictions, two-thirds of the respondents used up to 450 volts on actors, disregarding the danger, because they were asked to do so by authoritative figures (Milgram, 1973).
The result of this experiment demonstrates that authority has a great effect on one’s morality. Although many participants were uncomfortable with what they were doing, the desire to conform and the perceived lack of control interfered with their decision-making. As a result, many people went against their perceived morality and acted in ways they never thought they would. However, some individuals resisted the scientists’ authoritative control over the experiment and refused to harm others – their moral compass was unyielding. In these cases, people demonstrated that authority is not omnipotent and that one’s core beliefs may be stronger than outside influence.
Similarly, morality may influence one’s acts towards others – the perception of power may entice one to act with cruelty, dehumanizing subordinates in the process. This revelation was part of the Stanford prison experiment, in which students were assigned to roles as prisoners and guards. The latter established a violent and unjust system in less than a week, and the study had to end “because it was out of control” (Zimbardo, 2008).
Thus, the two concepts coexist in a system in which the levels of authority and obedience determine how people exercise their morality and how their thinking is corrupted or controlled by the environment. Chater (2020) discusses a measure of controlled authority and provides examples of how the coexistence of morality and authority strengthens society. These rules “arise, unbidden, from the needs of mutually agreeable social and economic interactions” (Chater, 2020, para. 16). Farmers discuss how they use fields, and coworkers establish some rules for using shared programs and resources. Children teach one another how to play correctly. Regulations govern games and sports because the absence of constraints would render these activities pointless.
Thus, authority and morality cannot exist in a vacuum or be entirely separated from one another. As Milgram (1973) notes, words such as “loyalty, duty, discipline” are used to describe one’s attitude towards authority and carry a significant moral connotation (p. 11). It is usually perceived that being loyal and dutiful is good, while being undisciplined or disloyal is bad. This inability to separate morality from authority is what leads the participants in the Milgram experiment to follow the instructions – they are obedient to a perceived source of power regardless of their beliefs.
Although many of these people relinquish their autonomy and state they cannot be held responsible for their actions during the experiment, they still feel bad. People may choose to defer responsibility if they “experience discomfort … when [their] thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors are inconsistent with each other” – they experience cognitive dissonance, a theory introduced by Festinger (CrashCourse, 2014b). It is a way for a person to reconcile the discrepancy between their view of themselves as a good person and the reality of participating in cruel actions.
Looking at the experiments discussed above, one can see that it is difficult for people to navigate power and morality. Nevertheless, it is possible to be obedient and moral in some circumstances. For instance, as noted previously, not all rules are created to facilitate injustice. By being obedient when playing games or participating in positive social changes, people may act in accordance with their moral beliefs (Chater, 2020).
The norm of reciprocity – “an expectation that people will help, not hurt, those who have helped them” – also supports the existence of helpful obedience (CrashCourse, 2014a). However, in all situations where morality and obedience are not in conflict, authority does not pressure people to do something that goes against their core ideologies. In contrast to the experiments, such control over people establishes rules that foster cooperation and empathy, without overriding one’s personality to the point of cognitive dissonance.
Therefore, it can be argued that authority can remain moral under specific circumstances. Some degree of control over society is necessary for people to achieve harmonious living (Chater, 2020). Furthermore, the presence of rules can help individuals form societies and thrive individually and collectively.
The Robber’s Cave experiment shows that different forms of authority can be moral or immoral. By fostering cooperation and creating shared goals, people in power can unite communities and eliminate the need for conflict and violence (CrashCourse, 2014a). Research notes that the foundation of such positive authority lies in mutual consent, shared responsibility, and a system for disobeying authority to establish new rules (Chater, 2020; Zimbardo, 2008). Thus, one’s control over others cannot be limitless and absolute, and the established rules must have a purpose that aids society and avoids harm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concepts of authority, obedience, and morality are interconnected and are part of human nature. People want to conform and follow the rules established by a perceived power. This desire may lead some to commit acts that conflict with their moral code, especially if they perceive themselves as powerless or not responsible for the consequences.
Simultaneously, human societies cannot exist without rules and often create some restrictions to coexist and survive as a group. The level of authority and people’s ability to disobey both play significant roles in maintaining the ethical basis of communities. Individuals can be both obedient and moral if the system does not foster an environment of competition and cruelty. In contrast, people may thrive without conflict when the established rules align with their moral beliefs.
References
Chater, N. (2020). Could we live in a world without rules? BBC.
CrashCourse. (2014a). Aggression vs. altruism: Crash course psychology #40. YouTube.
CrashCourse. (2014b). Social thinking: Crash course psychology #37. YouTube.
Milgram, S. (1973). The perils of obedience.
Zimbardo, P. (2008). The psychology of evil. TED.