This is a critique of Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem by Eric Fromm, written in 1963. Fromm states in his article that disobedience is what originally

set the human race on the path to thinking on their own, but obedience to authority in the

end will be what kills us all. Overall his article has several compelling reasons to believe

his theory, but it is also not completely believable for several reasons. There are several

points that are debatable and his high use of emotion alone could cause one to question

his article on a whole. Fromm being a psychoanalyst, sociologist, historian, and

philosopher may have contributed to his using the pull of emotion so much.

In his article Fromm …show more content…

Maybe if Fromm used a different term in describing this time it could be

considered a little more accurate.

The second fallacy in Fromm’s article is he states that within five to ten years,

from 1963, it is possible and probable that humans will destroy the civilization and all life

on earth. This is a hasty generalization, in which he is also drawing on the emotion of

fear, in order to sway opinions. There are no facts to back up the thought that humans

may destroy the world, especially in a specified time frame.

Fromm used false analogies in his writing also. First is the comparison of the

caveman to the politician. We have developed scientifically enough to create weapons,

yet politicians still think the way the caveman did. These two ideas are completely too

far apart on the scale to even try to compare to each other.

The second use of false analogy is when Fromm compares Adolf Eichmann, who

was in charge of the Nazi concentration camps, to the typical person. Eichmann, who

ordered the deaths of millions of people, could not be compared on the same level as a

typical person on the street. He states that we would and that we do in the same situation.

Not only is this a false analogy, but he also makes a hasty generalization in stating that

people would do the same thing now since he does not have the facts to back up this

statement. This statement also