Questioner: Can disobedience ever be good?

openAI: It is generally accepted that obedience to laws and rules is important for the functioning of society and the maintenance of order. However, there are also situations in which disobedience may be justified, such as when laws or rules are unjust or oppressive, or when they conflict with moral or ethical values.

For example, civil disobedience, or the peaceful refusal to comply with laws or rules that are perceived as unjust, has been used throughout history as a way to bring about social and political change. In such cases, disobedience may be seen as a necessary and justifiable action in order to challenge and bring attention to injustice.

On an individual level, disobedience may also be a necessary and appropriate response in certain situations, such as when following a rule or law would result in harm to oneself or others, or when it conflicts with one’s own moral or ethical values.

In general, the decision to disobey a rule or law should not be taken lightly and should be considered carefully, as disobedience can have consequences and may not always be the best course of action.

You answered your own question.
Blind obedience to laws or orders is not a good idea.
This is why I’m never selected for jury duty. I think that common sense should trump laws and regulations.

It depends on your point-of-view.

I think it can bring about change, which can be a good thing. Look what happened in China, with the protests against the very restrictive Covid lockdowns. They are not so strict now. The long term consequences might be that their Covid rates may skyrocket, but on some level, the easing of the restrictions will be good for some people, some of the time.

@gondwanalon Yes and no. It’s the response generated by openAI so I’m posting it on its behalf. But I do often answer my own questions. I think it’s healthy.

I would probably say:

It’s good when the authority in question is:
1. misaligned with a perceived greater good
2. self-contradicting, internally inconsistent and deceptive (full of ****)
3. less than adequate or ideal in matters which are important enough to warrant insubordination and disobedience

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Romans:13

@ragingloli
Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s (Matthew 22:21)

We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you (Matthew 5:10–12).

I cheated, I used the AI :)

I’m sticking to authority of laws and group rules. The kinds of things you can “disobey”. A doctor is an authority, but they are there to help and advise, not to be obeyed.

As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient. Disobedience should be a conscious choice, done with the intention of undermining the authority. If you are going to break the speed limit, it had better be because you want to destroy the government. Disobedience in a purely self-serving manner usually is a grift: this advantages me, so long as everyone else doesn’t start doing it. The disobedience in these cases, will still undermine the authority, whatever the original goal was. Think of it as making a withdrawal on the goodwill and trust that hold society together.

Supplement hucksters may constantly shitting on the FDA to prevent their own regulation, but if the FDA wasn’t out there every day for decades, generally getting it right and responding to mistakes, no one would trust any of those rando bottles next to the frozen food section. Poor Gweneth Paltrow would be stuck acting in movies to make a living.

As a spoiled citizen of a republic based on the theories of liberalism, it is easy to say that we should always follow laws, since changing and updating laws is itself a legal process. Breaking the rules only attracts negative consequences and harms the fabric of what is otherwise an imperfect, but amazingly beneficial system. However, there are countless authorities around the world that do not allow this, or at least it is not a process available to the vast majority of people. To them, I would suggest obedience is still the better choice most of the time, since random disobedience will only get them randomly imprisoned, and that their disobedience, if they choose it, should consciously be done as part of a conspiracy to deliberately harm the authority.

“As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient”

Disagree. I think it’s easier to say that it all depends. But to establish a rule of thumb in favor of blind anything is disagreeable, and to establish it in favor of obedience is arguable.

Why? Well which is better: Following a rule of thumb or thinking about it?

In other words, if you’re not sure what to do, and that demands that you have to think about it precisely because there is no rule of thumb, is that preferable to the alternative where you don’t have to think about it too long because common sense says obedience is just like better.

We could get into specifics and examples but that will lead down a rabbit hole of obscurity and confusion because anyone can make an argument for or rebut anything. Better than that is to argue the logic behind position taken. And let the individual unpack the world inside their own heads upon sound logic.

Rosa Parks would say so. And I’d agree with her.

The answer to the question, as worded, is:

YES

Of course.

For just one example:
My parents taught me:
If there is no good reason for a rule, then it should not be a rule.

I think the movie Braveheart answered this quite nicely!

Blind anything isn’t preferable, but most of us do live under governments with laws, and it is impossible to be your own perfect arbiter of right and wrong on all things. A rule of thumb, as a rule of thumb, is an often useful, admittedly imperfect tool for decision making, and I stand by the notion that in absence of a plan to undermine the authority, one should follow the rules. Since disobeying laws comes with consequences in any society, it shouldn’t be done without a larger understanding of the goals you are trying to achieve, the consequences it might bring, and that you are undermining the system for a larger goal. So yes, to get back to answering your question more specifically, disobedience can be good, if done well. It’s just that usually it isn’t.

While I don’t strictly disagree with the Rosa Parks quip, it should be noted that in wearing clothes, paying her fare and allowing herself to be arrested, Rosa was in fact being more obedient to the system than disobedient. Her work towards civil rights and the life she lived was mostly one of rule following, which gave power to the moments she chose not to. Her disobedience was limited to specific, targeted acts, designed to achieve a larger goal.

Questioner: Does the information I posted previously justify the following: “As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient”

openAI: No, the statement “As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient” does not appear to be justified by the information you provided. As I mentioned earlier, it is usually best to think critically and consider the specific context of a situation before making a decision, rather than blindly following or disobeying rules or instructions. Blind obedience or disobedience can both have negative consequences, as they do not take into account the specific circumstances of a situation. It is important to evaluate the potential outcomes of different actions and make a decision based on that evaluation, rather than following or disobeying rules blindly.

Questioner: what about this specifically: “A rule of thumb, as a rule of thumb, is an often useful, admittedly imperfect tool for decision making, and I stand by the notion that in absence of a plan to undermine the authority, one should follow the rules.”

openAI: It is generally advisable to follow rules and laws unless there is a good reason not to. A “rule of thumb” can be a useful tool for decision-making, as it provides a general guideline to follow in a given situation. However, it is important to recognize that a rule of thumb is not always applicable to every situation and may not take into account the specific context or details of a given situation. In such cases, it may be necessary to think critically and consider the potential outcomes of different actions in order to make a decision that is appropriate for the specific circumstances.

At the same time, it is important to be able to question authority and consider the potential consequences of following or not following a particular rule or instruction. It may be necessary to challenge authority or break the rules in order to bring about positive change or challenge injustice, but such actions should be taken with care and consideration for the potential consequences.

Questioner: To the question of whether disobedience is ever good, does the film Braveheart answer this nicely?

openAI: The film Braveheart tells the story of William Wallace, a 13th-century Scottish warrior who led a rebellion against English rule. In the film, Wallace’s disobedience to English authority is portrayed as a heroic and justifiable action, as he fights to defend his country and people against oppression.

Whether or not the film Braveheart provides a satisfactory answer to the question of whether disobedience is ever good depends on one’s perspective and values. Some may view Wallace’s actions as admirable and justified, while others may view them as misguided or dangerous. It is important to consider the specific context and circumstances of a situation when evaluating the appropriateness of disobedience. In some cases, disobedience may be necessary in order to bring about positive change or challenge injustice, but in other cases it may be inappropriate or even harmful. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to disobey should be based on a careful evaluation of the potential consequences and the specific goals that one hopes to achieve.

Resistance is NOT futile! I will die for what I think is RIGHT! I refuse to live under what I perceive as unjustified slavery. I would gladly step into Wallace’s shoes if needed. I applaud what he did!

openAI: Whether or not the statement “Rosa Parks would say so. And I’d agree with her.” is a good answer to the question of whether disobedience is ever good depends on one’s perspective and values. Some may agree with the idea that disobedience can be a justifiable and necessary action in certain circumstances, particularly in cases where laws or rules are unjust or oppressive. Rosa Parks’ act of civil disobedience, in which she refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white passenger in 1955, is often cited as an example of disobedience being used as a means of resistance against injustice.

However, it is important to recognize that the decision to disobey a rule or law should be made carefully and with consideration for the potential consequences. Disobedience can be a powerful tool for bringing about positive change, but it should be used with purpose and intention, and only in cases where the injustice or harm being challenged outweighs the potential consequences of disobedience. Without more information, it is not possible to determine whether the statement “Rosa Parks would say so. And I’d agree with her.” is a good answer to the question of whether disobedience is ever good.

Questoner: is this a good answer to the question:
It’s good when the authority in question is:
1. misaligned with a perceived greater good
2. self-contradicting, internally inconsistent and deceptive (full of ****)
3. less than adequate or ideal in matters which are important enough to warrant insubordination and disobedience

openAI: This answer provides some factors to consider when deciding whether disobedience is justified in a particular situation. Specifically, it suggests that disobedience may be appropriate when the authority in question is misaligned with a perceived greater good, self-contradicting, internally inconsistent, or deceptive, or when the authority is less than adequate or ideal in matters that are important enough to warrant insubordination.

This answer may be seen as a good response to the question of when disobedience is justified, as it provides specific criteria to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of disobedience. However, it is important to recognize that determining whether or not disobedience is justified can be subjective and may depend on one’s values and beliefs. Different people may have different opinions on what constitutes a good reason for disobedience, and it is important to consider the potential consequences of disobedience and whether or not it is likely to achieve its intended goals. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to disobey should be based on a careful evaluation of the specific context and circumstances of a situation.

Questioner: Is this a good arguement:

“As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient”

Disagree. I think it’s easier to say that it all depends. But to establish a rule of thumb in favor of blind anything is disagreeable, and to establish it in favor of obedience is arguable.

Why? Well which is better: Following a rule of thumb or thinking about it?

In other words, if you’re not sure what to do, and that demands that you have to think about it precisely because there is no rule of thumb, is that preferable to the alternative where you don’t have to think about it too long because common sense says obedience is just like better.

We could get into specifics and examples but that will lead down a rabbit hole of obscurity and confusion because anyone can make an argument for or rebut anything. Better than that is to argue the logic behind position taken. And let the individual unpack the world inside their own heads upon sound logic.

openAI:This argument presents a counterpoint to the statement “As a general rule, it is better to be blindly obedient than blindly disobedient.” The argument suggests that it is not always clear which is better – blindly following rules or thinking critically about a situation. The argument also suggests that blindly following a “rule of thumb” may not be the most effective or appropriate approach in all situations, and that it is important to consider the specific context and circumstances of a situation before making a decision.

Overall, this argument presents a well-reasoned counterpoint to the original statement and provides some valid points to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of obedience or disobedience in a given situation. It is important to think critically and consider the potential consequences of different actions before making a decision, rather than blindly following or disobeying rules or instructions.

Civil disobedience can be a very effective form of protest, as was shown by Gandhi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. It is a kind of judo move where you use the strength of the state against itself. If you can find enough people to peacefully disobey an unjust law, you get to a point where there is not enough prison space to hold all the protesters. The most expedient alternative is for the state to remove the law.

So blind disobedience is the preferable state?

Yes, the robot understood me. A rule of thumb is handy, but not sufficient for perfect moral clarity.

I’m not advocating blindness, but merely admitting the impossibility of being perfectly circumspect on all issues, we all have our blind spots, and acknowledging the tangible negative consequences a person will bring onto themselves and loved ones by pushing against legal authority. I’m saying that blindly following is safer than blindly fighting. If you fight, have a reason.

It’s all about context. People have a brain and deciding when to obey or not is part of one’s own situation.

It seems that everyone and his brother would like to be your boss. You can’t please all of them, nor should you.

I don’t do “blind obedience”.

If you choose your leader(s) carefully, obeying them will become much less risky and more profitable to everyone.

Yes, disobedience can be a good thing. Sometimes a necessary thing.

Of course, what a silly question. By whose authority is the authority the authority?

By experience, that deserves the benefit of the doubt and for the knowledge of those who have experienced more than you in life to have their discoveries, insights, and opinions heard.

By loyalty, sure, those who have supported you by standing by you deserve deference.

Because they say they are in charge… ha!

By some form of distributed group power. If they rule by the sword, one must keep in mind that they wield the sword, and they will use it on you without hesitation if it benefits them. Be careful.

Disobedience (in the confines of ethics and intelligence) is very valuable.
The best employees in America break rules all the time, for the benefit of customers or their bosses.
Not to mention the long history of civil disobedience we have, which is a good history.
Disobedience should not involve ego, or greed. It should be ethical and intelligent.