Intelligent Disobedience

We should follow orders, but only when they are reasonable, constructive and based on legitimate authority.

Would you consider yourself to be an obedient person? Most people will say: “No! I make decisions for myself.” But imagine that you’re working in a nuclear plant, and your boss hurriedly tells you to shut off the reactor. Would you do it? Most likely you would, without any hesitation.

But why would we be so quick to follow orders in this particular case? Well, certain situations require obedience, while others don’t. For a system to demand your obedience, it must meet particular conditions.

First, systems that require obedience should have rules and orders which are “reasonably fair,” meaning both that the system is based on moral principles and that it can function properly.

In contrast, systems whose rules are arbitrary or lead to negative outcomes (such as the suffering of others) should not be obeyed.

Second, the person who gives the orders must hold their position of authority over others legitimately, and act competently.

For example, a senior doctor who gives a junior colleague an instruction during a brain operation has both competence and legitimate authority. If the junior doctor ignores her expertise, the consequences could be severe. But if the hospital janitor gives the junior doctor instructions on brain surgery (or if a senior doctor gave the janitor instructions on how to best clean the floors), then their orders aren’t based on competency or legitimate authority.

Finally, the order should be constructive.

If obeying an order would cause more harm than good, then it shouldn’t be followed. Complying with immoral orders is wrong, and the person acting upon them can be held responsible for any harm caused by their actions.

For example, those who carried out Nazi war crimes tried to hide behind the fact they were “just following orders.” This plea was ignored, and many were convicted for their terrible deeds.