Following orders unquestionably is one of the traits that the military wants their soldier to have; this quality, however, has caused controversy throughout time. Rob Reiner captures this struggle in his film A Few Good Men. In this film, two men, Lance Corporal Dawson and Private First Class Downey are charged with the murder of fellow Marine, Private First Class Santiago. Dawson and Downey claim that they did not commit a crime but rather, were following orders to perform a “Code Red”. A “Code Red” is defined as a disciplinary action performed inside the Marines by Marines. Stanley Milgram’s article, “The Perils of Obedience” delves into the issue of obedience. His experiment consisted of subjects being told to electrocute other people …show more content…
Many military personnel believe that certain aspects of the military should stay inside the wall of the military. When Colonel Jessep shouts, “You can’t handle the truth,” he demonstrates that civilians and outsiders of the military would not be able to grasp why certain actions are taking place and the needs for such action (Reiner).
Soldiers in the military know the consequences to not following an order issued by a superior. According to Ron Powers, a man with 22 years of service and has been awarded many medals, states in his article “To Obey or To Not Obey” that soldiers are trained from recruitment to deployment to follow orders unquestionably. Soldiers are also told that willfully disobeying orders can result in a dishonorable discharge, or in a time of war, death (Powers). This leaves soldiers a minimal amount of ability to allow himself to follow his own morals. The thought of disobeying an order will usually bring disgust to the face of a soldier. This is because a soldier is merely performing his job in following order. Also, according to Kelman and Hamilton, the only time for a soldier to declare a complaint about an order is after it has already been followed through, thus causing the complaint to be moot (271). The military produces a difficulty for soldiers to follow their own morals if they conflict with the task at hand.
Another factor
Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article).
Some individuals know to obey their superior, unless they want to be faced with consequences. However, there are occasions individuals choose to be disobedience because they believe it is the right thing to do for the certain situation that they are faced with. This could in an individual being terminated, dishonorably discharged, or suspended. Knowing the outcome of being insubordinate, individuals are usually obedient, even when they are in a situation that is morally wrong. Kelman and Hamilton, in their article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” examine how Lt. Calley's unquestioning obedience resulted in the massacre of many women and children. Theodore Dalrymple, in his article, “Just Do What The Pilot Tells You,” asserts that there is a balance between when one should be obedient to orders or one should not be. A movie, A Few Good Men, shows two U.S. Marines, Dawson and Downey, being charged for the murder of a fellow Marine at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba and Lt. Daniel Kaffee represents them as their lawyer. Nicholas Leveillee, in his article, “The Role of Obedience in Society,” asserts that one needs to find a balance between obedience and insubordination, so individuals can maintain their individuality and a stable society. Adam Cohen, in his article, “Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain,” asserts that an
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist,
As US military expert Rod Powers explains how those who are military members who fail to obey their superiors risk serious consequences in "Military Orders", and could relate to why Dawson and Downey were convicted for their crimes (Power). Required to follow orders, a soldier does not need to obey an unlawful order, but those who obey can be pinned with criminal prosecution and in this case, it matches with Dawson and Downey's situation where they taped and tied up Santiago (Power). Fromm can conclude that irrational authority is used by using a comparison between a slave and their master; the superior wants the best they can draw from their subordinate and tries to exploit them, leading them to control with force (Fromm 126). When it comes to deciding whether or not an order is ethical, it is also the soldier's call to believe the legitimacy of the order; according to Saul McLeod, who is a psychologist and the author of "Obedience to Authority," obedience is a form of social influence by responding to a direct order from another individual (McLeod). Although Col. Jessup urged for no one to touch Santiago, Kendricks directly ordered Dawson and Downey to treat him with a Code Red, going against Col. Jessup's orders. Numerous situations occur where two people will discuss the same topic, but would contradict each other. It is easy to say "I was only following orders" to justify one's self to explain their reasoning, but that statement, also known as the Nuremberg Defense, is not going to save a person every time. Yes, Dawson and Downey were only following orders, but did they ever take a moment to question whether it was the right action and for a sensible reason? Probably not in consideration that it is a routine to follow a command because if they deny their superior's order, many consequences will follow. Kelman and Hamilton logically claimed that
The film, A Few Good Men, showcases military lawyer, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, defending two United States Marines, Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Louden Downey, who were accused of murdering a fellow Marine Corps member, Private William Santiago. The obedience of the Marines was assessed when Colonel Jessup ordered Lance Corporal Dawson and Private Downey to perform a “code red,” a brutal punishment made illegal by the government, on Private Santiago in order to coerce him into becoming an improved Marine. Similarly, in the article “The Perils of Obedience,” Stanley Milgram conducted a psychological experiment that observed the extent at which an individual will obey orders. The experiment created a scenario where an unknowing member
A person’s decisions, whether they are following directions or are making their own choices, will change their lives. The effect of a decision is played out in the movie A Few Good Men. In the movie, Lance Cpl. Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey’s decision to follow the orders of Col. Nathan R. Jessup to perform a code red on Pfc. Santiago, a “sub-par marine”, results in them accidentally killing Santiago. Dawson and Downey are originally blamed for Santiago’s death; however, Lt. Daniel Kaffee is able to convince the jury to drop the charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Despite this, both Marines are given a dishonorable discharge for performing the code red on Santiago (A Few Good Men). In Erich Fromm’s article, “Disobedience
Many times we are given commands or orders from a higher authority or power some of which we do not agree with or follow. This is because we use our moral values and human emotions to determine whether they were right or wrong. But there is a time where we may judge and not agree while others may not pass a judgment and be in agreement. In the study of Psychology we look to a researchers finding to prove the way we respond to emotional, environmental and societal changes. Stanley Milgram a researcher that set out on the behalf of Yale University conducted a study to determine how obedient
Being able to follow an order in the military is one of the most important aspects of being a solider. Military discipline and effectiveness is built on obedience, and recruits are taught to obey immediately and without question. Throughout A Few Good Men, Dawson contested that he was just following the orders he was given, “We did nothing wrong, sir. We did our job. If it has consequences, then I accept them. But I won’t say I’m guilty, sir [...] But I believe I did my job. I won’t dishonor myself, my unit, or the Corps, so that I can go home in six months” (51-52). Dawson felt
In this essay, I will argue that honor is a theme of A Few Good Men due to the fact that two Marine Corps soldiers are questioned whether they were ordered a “Code Red” or handling the situation for breaking the chain of command.
People often wonder why another person would, who claims to be a moral individual, perform an action that most would deem to be an immoral act. One example being in the movie A Few Good Men, most question why Dawson and Downey carry out the "Code Red" order and why Colonel Jessup even orders the "Code Red" in the first place. In 1963 at Yale University, Stanley Milgram, a profound psychologist, conducted an experiment of obedience, which became immensely popular and revealed the power of obedience in today 's world. Milgram presented his findings in his article, "The Perils of Obedience." Like Milgram, Philip Zimbardo, professor of psychology at Stanford University at the time, conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment, which tested average people 's abilities, or lack thereof, to resist authority or obedience. Lee Ross, professor of psychology at Stanford University, and Richard Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, studied social psychology experiments and published their findings in their article titled, "The Power of Situations." Each of these psychologists and professors aroused numerous questions regarding how far a person push the boundaries of their morals simply due to obedience. People perform actions that they know may be immoral due to, in most cases, an authoritative figure or simply a belief that what they are doing is imperative to the situation at hand.
Machiavelli declares that whatever you do, be it just or evil, if you know your actions will bring favorable results then you are not responsible for the manner, corrupt or blameless, in which they were obtained. This reasoning defines a timeless question: do the ends really justify the means? R. J. Herrnstein, author of “Measuring Evil”, believes they do, “A small, temporary loss of a few peoples comfort and privacy seems a bearable price for a large reduction in ignorance” (88). But is it not harsh to allow few to be terrorized for the benefit of many? When evaluating the Milgram experiment, summarized in Milgram’s article “The Perils of Obedience”, Diana Baumrind, writer of “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”,
Refusing to follow an order or not following it precisely indicates a soldier's unwillingness to compromise for the general good of the military and presents one's actions to be more self-centered and selfishly motivated than should be for a successful soldier. An individual who does not understand the gravity of orders in the military is one who can quickly become a hindrance to others' ability to execute tasks smoothly and quickly regardless of any persona factors and emotional sate during any given day. This is of course
Leaders should focus on maintaining an ethical climate in the work place. In the Army there is different way to display unethical behavior, DUI, domestic disputes, adultery, fraternization, and toxic leadership to mention few. I believe that today soldiers are not 100% committed to the Army Core Values. The public is a huge key player, the public opinion would not tolerate the execution of volunteer soldiers. Through this paper you will see the history of American deserters from the beginning 1812 to present and the implications of their actions. How in the past the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was enforced and how today judicial system is different and how it affecting our forces. The Army must ensure to enforce the standards in regard to desertion while consecutively maintaining good order and discipline in the armed forces.
Imagine being in an authoritative position in a war. Sounds cool right? Now imagine if your subordinates didn’t follow the orders you put out to them. You just imagined chaos right? In my opinion there is no limit to the chaos that could happen if just one soldier didn’t follow the orders given to him/her. It doesn’t matter what the rank of the soldier is. Following orders in the armed
There are little facts about the role of obedience up until now. Psychologists have been debating on factors that constitute obedience within an individual. For example, certain theories suggest that people do horrible actions only if they are ordered to do so. Research has shown that most people obey all orders given to them by the authority-figure. The idea for this topic came to me while flipping through channels. I came across a show called 20/20, on the Investigation Discovery Channel. The show has episodes that go through a series of crimes and murders and provides insight on how the crime came to be and why. On one particular episode, a successful, well-known businessman orders a new intern to “take care” of someone to gain favor from him. The intern does so without hesitation. The intern is noted to be kind and helpful by his friends and family, fresh out of college and very hopeful. So it shocked them to hear that he had murdered someone. Would he have committed this crime if he wasn’t told to? That is what I seek to know more about.