In class we've been talking about what dictates a choice. And how or why people choose to act immorally. Specifically we've been looking at cases that deal with authority and following orders. So far, we've placed blame on the theory of 'authority figures removing our' sense of autonomy'. I'm wondering if that theory can be tweaked a little. Lets look at it from the angle of motivation and self preservation. In past psychology classes we've talked about fear being the strongest of all motives. In our lives, we can almost certainly take our actions and subtract them back with fear reasoning. For example let's look at Eichmann. A German civilian who joined the german army, who hoped to gain a prosperous career, a genuine goal. But Eichmann was also responsible killing countless people; completely immoral. Eichmann's claim was that he was just "following orders", displacing the blame from him and on to someone or something else. Before he became this holocaust crusader, Eichmann had a choice. His choices included not joining the german army, standing up for the Jews and protecting their rights, or join a strong army with a chance of becoming something. Is it possible and completely reasonable to say that Eichmann acted out of fear? He could fight his own German people, stand against the army and most certainly be arrested or killed. Or he could join this immoral cause lead by powerful people, become a powerful person and live just by "following orders". We can also use the the Fear as motivation theory when talking about Diane Nash. She was so scared to stand up to these powerful white men but she felt a certain type of responsibility from her peers. These peers she also considered her friends. If she were to back down, she didn't know if they would reject her, or think less of her, they encouraged her. We can also look at the proximity of authority in correlation to fear. Her peers were close to her; their peer pressure may have outweighed the fear she had of these unknown, no where close to her, white men that she was standing up to. Eichmann did not see the Jews he was sending to the concentration camps, he did however work closely with other German officers. Fear of consequences and shame can easily encourage actions, whether immoral, moral, or for a just cause. Its not loss of autonomy, we do not lose our "self-law", we act our of fear in order to preserve ourselves; the question to ask is more or less is it ethical to be so selfish at certain times rather than others.
I agree with your opinion on fear as motivation for Eichmann, but I don’t think Diane Nash’s acts were induced by fear. Her situation I believe is somewhat similar to Eichmann’s but there are some differences. Eichmann was an idealist and happened to believe in a horrible cause, whereas Nash was fighting for a righteous cause. I’m sure Eichmann had second thoughts about what was going on in Germany. However, I think he realized that if he didn’t go along with the deportations and killings of the Jewish people, that he himself would be killed for not following orders. Nash was facing fear rather than being controlled by fear. Nash was standing up for the discriminations, while Eichmann just went along with the injustices. In both situations the majority of the populations had immoral views (Deep South: segregation and Germany: killing of the Jewish people). Nash goes against the flow and challenges the beliefs of the powerful white men of the Deep South. Although, this was very dangerous at the time and her life was in danger she did not let these fears control her. On the other hand, Eichmann was not as courageous and let fear control his actions. So, fear is a great motivator and it takes tremendous bravery to fight against powerful figures with immoral opinions. Furthermore, I wonder how many men or even groups that fought against the injustices to the Jewish people leading up to the holocaust?
I actually believe that Nash did act out of fear, but a different type. Her fear and Eichmanns fear were not the same because as you said Eichmann seemed to fear for his own life and knew that if he didn't follow orders that he would be killed. However Nash seems to have a fear for her people and her ideas. To me she is scared of failing and not being able to complete desegregation and all of the other positive movements going on. I think she was driven by the fear of failure, fear of not standing up for what she beleived in and fear of letting her piers down. Eichmann was driven by the fear of authority and fear of stepping out of line. So to me they are both driven by fear but for different reasons and in very different situations.
I agree with you in stating that Nash’s act were not induced by fear rather she faced it and that Eichmann was an idealist who believed in a horrible cause. I disagree with you in that I do not believe that Eichmann had second thoughts about what was going on in Germany and I do not think he acted out of fear of being killed. I believe that anxiety of what could go wrong naturally made her fear all that could go wrong but that because she felt she needed to stand up to something she feared greatly she pressed forward. I believe that in thinking about the possible negative reactions she could have received if she backed down was simply an extra incentive to do something she was determined to do. It is my strong belief that one cannot compare her fear of being rejected by her friends to the fear of being beaten down by the police. With that being said I do not believe she risked her life to stand up for a righteous cause to keep her friends. I proclaim that she did it because it was her hearts desire to make a difference and fight for what she believed in, which was civil rights for an entire race of people who were so grossly denied. As far as Eichmann goes I think you gave him too much credit because in the book Arendt quoted Eichmann as having said the following: “I will jump into my grave laughing, because the fact that I have the death of five million Jews [or “enemies of the Reich,”…] on my conscience gives me extraordinary satisfaction.” (Arendt, 322) If Eichmann feared anything it was the idea of not being acknowledged for his work.
My comment is actually suppose to be posted in response to aps5096 and not Jameson L, but feel free to comment either way.
In answering whether or not it is reasonable to say that Eichmann acted out of fear I must say that under no circumstances do I believe it to be true. I believe that Eichmann is given too much leeway in that I don’t think he was an unintelligent individual who simply jumped when his superiors said how high. His claim that he was merely following orders was a ploy to escape the consequences. Too many of Eichmann’s action were in a perfectly aligned unison which continuously fostered the massacre of Jews. Eichmann made too many developmental plans that, and I hate to say this, were brilliant in concept and to the effect of what he wanted to accomplish. Eichmann was fully aware that he could negotiate and organize better than the rest and with that being said could have simply not used these aspects of his abilities to further develop better ways to “cleanse” his country.
I do like the idea of fear as motivation and I certainly like the fact that you used the word “responsibility” and not fear in explaining her connection to her peers. I do believe that fear of what the men could do to her was a compelling factor that weighed heavy in deciding whether to press forward but in no way do I believe that this fear of her possibly death or being badly beaten even comes close to her feeling of anxiety towards losing friends. To state so, in my opinion, is insulting. It’s like saying that she valued her friends over her safety and her life. I do not know one person who would put their life in the balance to make sure that their friends continue to like them. I do however know of people, including myself who would risk our lives for friends in life or death situations but that’s another scenario. You validated my point in stating this when you said that “we act out of fear in order to preserve ourselves.” With that same statement as reference I must say that yes, it is ethical to be selfish at certain times in order to preserve one’s life.
I agree as well. I think that in Nash's situation she was the leader. Nash had people that stood behind her 100% and felt that she was the leader of the society. Just as Hitlers' followers took orders becaues he was more of the authoritative figure, Nash's friends took orders from her. Here I think you can make an arguement that she was the authoritative figure that put forth the movement. She openly took on the responsibility to become the leader possibly out of fear, or fear of failure, but either way she stepped into the role of the authoritative figure. So here she seems no different than Eichmann, she was a leader, gave out orders and demands, and had followers. Each of these leaders had a choice to make, ultimately the same choice, just the actions were different.
I do agree that they are the same in that they are both leaders and they both were followers at the same time. I think the important difference is that Nash was following orders and leading a movement he believes in. Eichmann said he didn't really believe in what he was doing but was only following orders. I think if you asked Diane Nash if she was following orders she would say no. She would say Lawson was merely guiding her and that she decided what she would do. Even though she was scared inside she decided to go on. She showed her autonomy.
For the most part I agree with what everyone else is saying. In the case of Adolf Eichmann, maybe at the start of his carreer he had some fear which led him to join the Nazi organization. But as time went on I really don't believe that he had to much to fear. He was quickly moving up the ranks and eventually landed a job that he wanted all along. Hannah Arendt states, "What stuck in the minds of these men who had become murderers was simply the notion of being involved in something historic, grandiose, unique (pg 339)." This coupled with a breakdown in autonomy, through methods which pretty much brainwashed men, was what kept them motivated. With Diane Nash, her motives were to resolve the injustices which she and her race were facing at the time. The fear that she felt was just a consequence that came along with it. To me her fear was letting other people down, which did help to motivate her, but overall it wasn't the main source of motivation.
I believe everyone can agree the use of fear as a motivation tool is something both Adolf Eichmann and Diane Nash had both experienced, and that they both experienced it in different ways. The idea that you don't want to let your peers down, however, is similar in both cases. I don't think Diane Nash had expected she would convince Mayor West that his town's policies would need to change, and I don't think Adolf Eichmann knew he was going to do anything like the acts his career had led him to commit, but I think that's a part of what they both experienced because they levied what they were doing off of the most primal motivator, fear. Of course there were different reasons contributing to those actions for both parties, however, I think Hannah Arendt would have to say that Eichmann continued something wrong, and Diane Nash participated in an effort for the right reasons. Motivators can seem different as time moves on, and I think Fear dissipated in Eichmann's situation and was a constant fuel in Diane Nash's case.
I agree with your assessment that Arendt pointed out that those murderers thrived on the notion that they were part of something historic, grandiose, and unique. This is a perfect example of Eichmann’s use of “winged words” to control his countrymen. The irony in it all is that no one seemed to realize the emptiness behind his words, or at least no one made a great effect to verbally and actively oppose them. And even more complexing point is that no one argued against the fact that if what they were doing was so grand then why could it not be written. Then again, since fear plays such a large part in the decisions we make it makes sense. I also agree with your assessment of Diane Nash. I do believe that while making sure she did not let everyone down was a part of her motivation, it was not the only source. In my opinion her main source of motivation was her desire to make a difference and change the moral injustice. Sad to say that Eichmann was similar in that he wanted to make a great difference, only his great difference had a horrific end of which no applause or praise should be given.
I was thinking Jared’s comment in placing blame on the theory of an authority figure and thus removing our own sense of autonomy and I am just curious as to why one would displace the blame from the guilty party who acted out the part and onto the authority figure, as opposed to either holding both equally responsible or holding the actor more responsible? This question is of course to the individuals that have placed blame on the authority figure as Jared previously mentioned in his initial post. The way I see it, the actor if not at least half responsible is more responsible because they set the deed in motion by acting upon it. Personal responsibility is huge in my opinion. With that being said, what makes the actor less responsible or not responsible at all? We were all born with personal choice and certain rights and freedoms. Why is it so hard for some to act autonomously of their own morality when faced with a stifling or grossly difficult decision? Does nature versus nuture in that one who is taught to never disobey authority compared to one who is talk to respect authority but never lose your voice come into play? Does fear of inadequacy in comparison to others a factor that must be considered when some simply follow orders without contest no matter how immoral?
When I think about this I really don’t believe that the nature vs. nurture has anything to do with it. I think that we all grow up and for the most part we know the difference between right and wrong. I do though believe that the fear of being inadequate in the presence of others can affect our choices and our ability to act upon what we know is right vs. wrong. When there is someone standing over your shoulder watching your every move, this pressure makes it very hard to make decisions, even ones we know are right. Also, when that person is someone that is considered an authority figure, as opposed to an equal, this adds an extra element of pressure. No one wants to look bad in front of others as well as feel inferior to those we look up to. Adolf Eichmann did terrible things while he was with the Nazi organization, but he was surrounded by higher ranking officials who expected him to do a certain job and do it well. This to me is the same as Diane Nash being afraid of letting her peers and those she respected and looked up to down.
I am curious as to what everyone thinks about the guys in the Shock Therapy Experiment who stated that they did not want to take responsibility for the possibility of hurting the “learner” yet continued to shock the learner for wrong answers once they were informed that they were free from responsibility of hurting the learner. I don’t know about any of you but it makes me second guess the authenticity of their words. One guy in particular even made it a point to say that he would not continue because he did not want to hurt the learner, but after the testing admin told him that he must continue and that he would not face the responsibility for hurting the learner he continued with the experiment. It was as if hearing that he did not have the responsibility on his shoulders outweighed the learner’s yelling that he was in pain and wanted to stop for the sake of the experiment. But I question if he continued for the sake of the experiment or did he continue because he felt inferior and had to, was in so much duress that he could not think properly and simply reacted, or were his words all a ploy to make himself look good while doing something that he enjoyed which was causing someone else pain? I question which scenario it could be because the same guy continued to administer the shocks even after the guy stopped responding and refused to answer one simple question, “what if anything could the learner have said that would have made him stop?”