Should We Accept Orders Without Question? Is This Dangerous? Should We Sometimes Disobey Orders?

This question raises a lot of moral and philosophical issues. It looks at moral absolutism and moral relativism as well as looking at the relationship between the individual and the state. In order for the answer to be satisfactory it is important to actually analyse the meaning of the question. The first sentence in the question alone is asking the answerer to evaluate the correlation between a citizen and its leader . This implies the state or the government. It is important to not just postulate the state or government that we live under is the state in question. States are very changeable throughout time and different cultures. If we are to come to a coherent conclusion, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of states and governments, both in the present day and also historically too. After that issue is addressed, the answerer must then focus on the moral issue of obeying orders and whether some humans are more qualified than others to tell us what to do. This is why we must start with Greek philosophy and Plato, because Plato believed in a hierarchy of people based on knowledge and morality.

This question is heavily linked to Plato s Republic because within this book, Plato sets out his moral and political perspective. Within the Republic, Plato describes his ideal city as Kallipolis, which is Greek for beautiful city [1]. Many philosophers have concluded that within Kallipolis, Plato desired a totalitarian-like state. This conclusion has been reached, because Socrates in the Republic is quite explicit that the good at which the rulers aim is the unity of the city[2]. Totalitarianism is a type of dictatorship in which the ruling elite exert power not only over the political aspects of their citizens lives, but over their private life as well[3]. Totalitarianism is a political way of achieving unity which is what Plato desired because he claimed that unity is beneficial for society as a whole. This is why Plato believed that the good of the city and the good of the individual coincide[4]. Moreover, Socrates states that the ruler s task is to benefit the ruled[5]. This implies a level of authority, power and control which totalitarianism is contingent on.

Plato believed that everyone should strive to be a philosopher. A philosopher in Plato s eyes is someone who is rational and virtuous and this is why he believed that either philosophers rule as kings, or kings become philosophers [6]. Therefore, in answer to the question, Plato would encourage us to listen to the rulers within a just and fair city such as Kallipolis. This is because the rulers would be morally superior as they are rational and intellectual beings. The rulers have a higher level of knowledge than civilians, which is why we should always obey orders from those above us.

However, Plato s view is inherently contradictory. The very essence of totalitarianism is that we accept, obey and follow orders from those whom rule. This in itself takes away one s personal liberty and autonomy. Yet Plato also encouraged everyone to be rational and to think for themselves. This aids each individual s transaction from the material world to the world of Forms[7]. Isn t it impossible to have a society full of autonomous beings where it is totalitarian too?

However, one may argue that it is not as clear-cut as that. The totalitarianism that we comprehend is one of brutality and violence, such as Nazi Germany, Mussolini s Italy or Stalin s Russia, where the notion of democracy is vacant. Benjamin Jowett perceived Plato s work as a model for liberal meritocracy right to rule based on ability not inheritance[8]. Therefore, in Kallipolis, we should accept the orders given to us from the state. Therefore, one would logically conclude that Plato would argue that we should listen and obey orders from the state but only in a just and fair society such as Kallipolis.

The conscience is pivotal in answering this question. There is often some bewilderment about what the conscience actually is as people have different perceptions. The dictionary defines the conscience as the inner sense of what is right and wrong in one s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action [9]. This definition would naturally imply that we should use our conscience in ethical and moral decision making, even if it clashes with the rules of the state. It is unnatural for humans to act against something that their conscience tells them not to.

However, it is not that simple, because there is a lot of debate about where the conscience actually comes from. Richard Dawkins for example, argues that the conscience is part of our biological makeup. It is an innate sense of right and wrong that aids human s evolutionary process[10].

Christian teachings differ from scientific and biological teachings of the conscience. For example, Catholicism states that the conscience has absolute authority as it comes from God who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. This belief is repeated throughout the magisterium and the catechism. The conscience is the law of the mind[11] - it is God s way of being with us and therefore we should go against the laws and orders of the state if our conscience tells us otherwise. It is therefore not just permissible but actually sometimes obligatory to disobey one s rulers.

However, the view that we should always do what we think is right is problematic too. For example, those who are sceptical of the Abrahamic religions can present philosophical and theological theories such as the Euthyphro dilemma to question whether God is actually this loving, caring, knowledgeable entity that he is postulated to be. What if God exists but he is not a God worthy of worship and obedience? This is the view of Stephen Fry who used evidence of suffering and pain in this world to challenge the notion that God is this loving and caring being[12].

Most people are likely to conclude that we shouldn t blindly accept orders, we should be rational and do what we feel is the right thing to do. If everyone always accepted orders without questioning them, then it would be nearly impossible for social change to happen. Nelson Mandela grew up and lived in a society full of racism and oppression, yet he defied the state, he defied the laws to bring about social change[13]. If he did not defy those laws, then state racism and oppression would have continued.

Moreover, we should never accept orders without question, because this is often how genocides are committed. Barbaric dictators such as Hitler and Pol Pot used propaganda to indoctrinate their citizens so that mass-genocide could be committed and justified. Whilst indoctrination to some extent takes away moral responsibility from the individual, history shows how important it is to challenge and scrutinise laws and policies. This has been highlighted numerous times in the court of law, where soldiers accused of human rights abuses and genocides have used the defence that it was their order to do so [14].

This is not the only reason why we should not blindly accept orders and laws however. States that have dictators, fascists and/or religious leaders often claim absolute truth. This is how they can justify their ideologies and principles. This is dangerous and inaccurate because evidence implies that there is no such thing as moral absolutism. The evidence includes the change in attitudes towards homosexuality within Britain and the differences throughout different cultures and traditions. Britain views the death penalty as morally wrong, whereas parts of the USA and numerous countries in the Middle East use the death penalty. Therefore, in a world where moral relativism is the ethical theory that is perceived to be most accurate, we should be cautious and question those who claim absolute truths. In addition, we do not choose where we are born or what we are born into, so we should not feel obliged to obey an order because it is for the state .

All of the evidence presented so far has been from an individualistic perspective. In order to come to a logical conclusion to this question, it is important to look at the role of the individual within society. This is what the social contract theory and utilitarianism illustrates. Whilst we should not blindly accept laws and orders, when we are being rational, we should consider the consequences of the action for society as a whole. We should abide to this greater good , because if it benefits society, then the chances are it will benefit the individual too. Therefore, we should consider the wider implications of our decisions before deciding whether to obey or disobey orders and rules.

It is clear that there is no clear-cut answer to this question. There is plenty of evidence on both sides. The notion of duty is pivotal in answering this question. Philosophers such as Kant would argue that we should do our duty for duties sake[15]. An example to illustrate this is a soldier, who should obey orders without question. Historically, soldiers who have questioned or disobeyed orders have been shot. Some British soldiers in World War One for example[16]. Yet I would argue that we should never blindly accept orders. It is important to follow the guidance of governments that are democratically elected because that would contribute to the greater good as the government in power is the government most desired by society. What is crucial is that each individual takes a rational approach and do what they perceive to be right. However, to say that it is sometimes obligatory to disobey one s rulers is wrong in my eyes, because there are situations where people are forced either physically or emotionally to do something they really do not want to do. Nevertheless, we should always try to do what we believe to be right, even if that clashes with the rules and orders of the state.

[1] David Roochnik, Beautiful City: The Dialectical Character of Plato`s "Republic", 2nd edn (New York: Cornell Paperbacks, 2008), p. 69.

[2] Plato, Republic, trans. by Christopher Rowe (London: Penguin Classics, 2012), p. 176.

[3] Michael Bailey and others, 30-Second Politics, ed. by Steven L. Taylor (London: Icon Books Ltd, 2018), p. 44.

[4] Eric Brown, Plato`s Ethics and Politics in The Republic (2017) <&https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics>& [accessed 25 April 2018].

[5] Plato, p.176.

[6] Dave Robinson and Judy Groves, Plato: A Graphic Guide, ed. by Richard Appignanesi (London: Icon Books Ltd, 2010), p. 9.

[7] Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy (Woking: Unwin Brothers Limited, 1946), p. 147.

[8] D.J. Sheppard, Plato`s Republic: An Edinburgh Philosophical Guide (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009), p. 4-5.

[9] Christine Ammer, Conscience (2002) <&http://www.dictionary.com/browse/conscience>& [accessed 1 May 2018].

[10] Active Education, The atheistic conscience (2018) <&http://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/comments-on-dawkins-view-of-conscience-the-atheistic-conscience/>& [accessed 7th May 2018].

[11] John Henry Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), p. 248.

[12] Kevin Rawlinson, Stephen Fry `God is evil` interview up for religious broadcasting award (2016) <&https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/21/stephen-fry-god-evil-interview-religious-broadcasting-award>& [accessed 8 May 2018].

[13]Clea-Guy Allen, 7 people who broke the law to change the world (2015) <&https://www.one.org/us/2015/02/12/8-people-who-broke-the-law-to-change-the-world/>& [accessed 7 May 2018].

[14] Tom Bower, They Were Just Following Orders (1979) <&https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1979/10/21/they-were-just-following-orders/34d2eb42-daf6-49b9-af28-37a9582d0688/?utm_term=.c817a36df03a>& [accessed 8 May 2018].

[15] A.K. Bierman and James A. Gould, Philosophy for a New Generation, 2nd edn (Toronto: Macmillan Company, 1973), p. 137.

[16] Greig Watson, World War One: Thomas Highgate first to be shot for cowardice (2014) <&http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25841494>& [accessed 10 May 2018].