Now, let’s consider this: If right action was spurred on, not by understanding on the part of the person who feels they SHOULD be doing something but by the very necessity of the should? A person’s need of acceptance, of belonging, is now dependent upon the action that was dictated to them. Instead of the benefit of rational thought that comes from the development of a healthy ego and thus superego we, developmentally, are stunted into needing the comfort and pleasure of a satisfied id and a momentarily comforted, but flawed, ego. The question WHY it would be a good idea to do x,y and z can not be asked to good and useful effect without the sense of self. Furthermore, without the question why the action is simply followed through a dictum because it’s what someone is SUPPOSED to do. This means the notions of morality and ethics are completely reliant upon that person doing the ordering being moral and/or ethical.
The person to be held accountable for an action that might be considered bad or horrible is the person doing the action. Very rarely is it laid upon the person who used a subtle tyranny to accomplish such matters. A few circumstances this calls to mind: People being ordered to do things that are expressly forbidden in writing somewhere, but that directly conflicts with other oaths as well as training; historically a message taught seems to lay the blame of atrocities upon one person whilst the masses (apparently without healthy egos?) merely bowed their heads and acquiesced to the orders above BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID/MISLED/WEREN’T BREASTFED. This is not being used as a defense of wrong action, but in the notion that people who literally do jobs that require them to follow orders in such a manner are being held fully accountable for the moral and ethical fallibility of superiors who were completely wrong in doing the ordering; just as those who wanted to commit and willfully took part in wrong action escape fault due to the encouraged lack of responsibility.
The self-assured person would be less inclined to make way for some other person’s ethics, if they’re completely divergent from their own, to run their lives. While it’s true there are many such instances that could compel a person thus it would take that wrong action of force to do so. There is, of course, the flip side in that the person doing the ordering can be having good done; but the truth is, that malleability of an ethically submissive/ambivalent person will more than likely not discriminate. It is up to the dictator in the situation to order well, charismatically or in a brilliantly tyrannical way to get things accomplished. Unfortunately, history indicates little more is necessary. [Please note: When I’m talking about a self-assured person I am not talking about world domination. Truly. The balanced and healthy person will not seek to rule over anyone else as a tyrant or dictator. The need for power of this sort is a different manifestation of a similar problem.]
The third and FINAL PIECE of this (yes, actually about selfishness) will be up in one week. Thanks for hanging in and, as always, I look forward to the convo!