3 ms·
Following orders isn't totally voluntary. You don't have time in a stressful instant to decide whether an order from your boss (colonel, coach) is correct. Peo
by awinter-py 11y ago
Following orders isn't totally voluntary. You don't have time in a stressful instant to decide whether an order from your boss (colonel, coach) is correct.
People still argue about the milgram experiment and nuremberg trials but one conclusion you can draw -- it's 'abnormal' to reject orders on moral grounds.
You're defining authority as power and that ends up being circular; the two are synonyms. I think this issue is more complicated than you're making out. The opposite of slavery is freedom, but the opposite of leadership is anarchy and waste. I can't survive on my own so I work with groups of people.
- meric 11y agoYou have to believe either you or society is going to be better off if you followed the order than you didn't, for you to follow it. A person who can force that situation on you so you would follow their orders have authority. A random person off the street can't order you around.
- awinter-py 11y agoDepends on the situation; in the presence of danger, I trust the person with the most information (and use various heuristics to assess who that is). The analysis you're suggesting is right (am I better off following), but in general that's just 'what is optimal to do' -- and that takes time to know. The implicit bargain in all power transactions is Sam Jackson's 'come with me if you want to live'. (where 'live' can be 'get rich', 'not go to jail', 'eat'). And there's never enough information or time to make a smart decision. Smart despots hoard information as much as guns, but even fair leaders have to choose what to say because of limited attention and TMI risks.