Disobedience is purposefully nonviolent because it is the failure to follow a series of laws or principles that are considered to be unfair in order to promote moral consistency. The fundamental contexts in which disobedience may be justified are the need to maintain spiritual dignity and the advancement of constructive social changes. Rebellion can be robust or unreceptive, which means that it can be a matter of doing what is prohibited or making it worse by doing what is necessary. If the conduct or inaction is entitled to be just, it must be publicly declared in this situation. For instance, if an individual fails to vote in a particular state there is legal accountability because voting does not establish noncompliance, and no one will state in community that one did not fulfil with the specific law. Classically but not essentially one would publicly inspire another person to disobey. The act of disobedience is reasonable and accepted under a particular condition, which cannot be assumed and considered as legal (Pozzi 19).
In some cases, disobedience is justified to preserve the moral integrity, combat immorality and encourage positive social reforms. In this case, it is significant to distinguish that all points addressed regard any rationally just and virtuous society, which in some cases would encourage obedience. However, it is essential to understand that all though there can be substantial moral justification to follow, laws of the individual, there is no moral obligation doing what is wrong. Nevertheless, individuals must, therefore, have the responsibility to stand up for principle violations. Additionally, there are many forms in which being obedience affect people and situation. For instance, Stanley Milgram investigated an experiment at the University of Yale to test how much hurt an ordinary citizen would impose on another person straight because he was ordered to buy an investigational scientist. In this testing, the specialist was pitted against the subject strong ethical authoritative against aching others and with the subjects’ ears resounding with the scream of power on more often than not. In the basic of the experiment, the “learner” and the “teacher” take part to examine the study of memory and learning. The “leaner” act as an apparatus to test the ability second word of the pair with his arms strapped to an electric chair and in case of a mistake, he will receive an electric shock(Stanley 62). In this case, obedience is evitable because the leaner will be risking his life and the condition necessary disobedience take place. The leaner disobeying the teacher is legal since the teacher is endangering the life of the more muscular.
Relatively, it is necessary to retain disobedience to justify the need for social progress and enhance the promotion of change in a challenge that may have been otherwise being overlooked. Once the problem is identified, there are necessary steps that are taken to prohibit any further unjust acts. For example, in the peril acts of obedience, obedience is the edifice of social life that can plug to some method of power and a requisite of mutual living and it is for the person only aboding in isolation and who are not voluntary to spend with insolence or suggestion to the command of others. The philosopher argues that every stuff of society is vulnerable by disobedience while humanists stress the primacy of individual conscience. In this case, the risk of obedience takes place where the leaner complaint of fill pain “the conflict arises when the man receiving the shock begins to show discomforts at 75 volts he gunts. At 120 volts he complains loudly at 150 volts, he demands to be released from the experiment and a voltage increase, his complaint becomes more vehement and emotional. At 275 volts his response is described only s an agonized scream, and after that, he makes no sound (Stanley 64).” In this case, the obedience of leaner to experiment was illegal, and in fact, he disobeyed the teacher perhaps he could not become one of the gripping tension.
On the contrary, disobedience separates the weak from the strong in many cases where it ends up causing people far more than they ever thought. For instance, Christian with their strong faith does not associate with the people that do not believe or walk in Christian way or who have weak faith. Strong people think that disobediently is consequential by nature and that in many cases it ends up causing things that are far more than they thought. For example, The book of Genesis 3:6. “when the woman saw that tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its tree and ate; and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” Up to date, there is a witness before people’s eyes and how they are destroyed through immorality crimes that yielded from disobedience. In this case, the consequences of disobedience create a gap between strong and weak people and as a result, lead to separation. Additionally, influential people believe that disobedience walks hand in hand with emotional consequences and that it can inflict much psychological pain on them to the extent that they become slaves to bitterness, unforgiveness, and anger. Therefore believe that weak people do not care about it and as a result creating a gap between them and separate.
Relatively, the repercussion of disobedience may include punishment. For instance, if a child is instructed by his or her parent to do some work and the fail, the parent may consider it as being disobedient, and definitely, he or she will punish the child. Additionally, about bible, the repercussion of being disobedient lead to death. This is evident by the consequence of the fall of man where he disobeyed God, and the results were dying.“ You shall surely die” Genesis 2:17. Moreover, individuals believe that there is nothing good that comes from disobedience it is thought as a reason for wrong and that has no better outcome. On the other hand, the repercussions of obedience are considered as positive. In this case, obedient is believed to set a positive example for the day to day activities. For instance, if a kid obeys the school rules he or she is considered to have the discipline that moves hand in hand with better preformation. Moreover, obedience leads to a smoother life where it brings understanding in many families and adds knowledge to their day to day activities. Furthermore, compliance convey awareness in the society where children obey their elders, individuals will respect each other, and as a result uniting individuals together, and everyone lives in peace among each other (Reicher, Stephen, and Alexander 164).
Bocchiaro, Piero, Philip G. Zimbardo, and Paul AM Van Lange. “To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of the dynamics of disobedience and whistle-blowing.” Social Influence 7.1 (2012): 35-50.
Pozzi, Maura, et al. “Do the right thing! A study on social representation of obedience and disobedience.” New Ideas in Psychology 35 (2014): 18-27.
Reicher, Stephen, and S. Alexander Haslam. “After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram ‘obedience’studies.” British Journal of Social Psychology 50.1 (2011): 163-169.
Stanley, Milgram. “The Perils of Obedience.” Obedience to Authority, Rae, Beyond Integrity (2011).