Comparing Erich Fromm's Disobedience As A Psychological And Moral Problem

The decisions that one makes may not always reflect one's personal beliefs. Oftentimes, many external factors lead one to make a choice that they do not agree with. This leads to the moral dilemma of when to obey a higher authority, and when to disobey. In his essay, “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem”, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, dissects both internal and external forces that drive a person to make decisions. It is important for one to become aware of these forces so they can determine the best way to respond to a situation.

One must understand the factors that affect their decision making in order to determine when to obey and when to disobey. While Fromm stresses the importance of disobedience in society,

By adhering to a higher authority, one practices heteronomous obedience. Usually this type of obedience is practiced out of fear of punishment. In contrast, autonomous obedience is obeying to one's conscience and internal choices. In other words, it is a form of morality. Similar to obedience, there are also two types of conscience; these include authoritarian and humanistic. Authoritarian conscience is “obedience to a power outside of [one]self, even though this power has been internalized” (Fromm 385). Essentially, authoritarian conscience is the idea of conforming with widely accepted beliefs to please others or fit the status quo. In contrast, humanistic conscience is “the ability to be and to judge oneself” (Fromm 385). This has to do more with the instinctual habits of humans, as well as their own individual beliefs. Finally, Fromm describes the difference between rational and irrational authority using two contrasting relationships. He explains, “An example of rational authority is to be found in the relationship between student and