Understanding Obedience: Miller, Huemer, and Political Authority
Understanding Obedience: Miller and Huemer’s Perspectives
While Miller focuses on why the state is necessary for society to function well, Huemer is more interested in understanding why people actually obey political authority in the first place. He argues that our obedience often comes from psychological and social habits rather than clear, rational thinking. Through things like national symbols, voting rituals, and public ceremonies, people are raised to see the state as something natural and trustworthy. Huemer believes that this kind of psychological influence helps explain why many people follow laws or respect authority, even when they don’t fully understand or agree with it.
This creates a clear difference between the two thinkers. Miller thinks people obey because political authority has a real, helpful purpose — it allows people to live together in peace and cooperation. Huemer, on the other hand, believes that people often obey because they’ve been trained to do so, even when the authority isn’t fair or reasonable. In that way, Huemer’s view can make us question whether political authority is truly justified, or just something we’ve been taught not to question.
Even though they look at the issue differently, Miller and Huemer don’t completely disagree. Their ideas can actually fit together. Huemer helps explain how people come to accept and follow political authority, while Miller gives a reason why that authority might be necessary and useful. In a well-functioning society, people might obey both because they’ve grown up respecting the state and because the state really does provide safety, fairness, and public services.
But problems start to appear when the state fails to live up to its purpose. If a government is unfair, violent, or corrupt, Miller’s explanation no longer works well — the state is no longer doing its job. Yet, Huemer’s explanation still applies. People may continue to obey that unfair authority simply because they are used to it or feel pressure to follow the rules. This shows that people might obey even when they shouldn’t, which highlights a risk in relying only on Miller’s more optimistic view of political authority.
However, when governments are working properly and treating people fairly, the two views can support each other. Miller explains why we need states to protect rights and keep order, and Huemer shows how social and psychological habits help people accept and follow that authority.
In that case, the structure of the state and the mindset of the people are working together.
In the end, both Miller and Huemer offer important insights into why people obey political authority. Miller shows that some form of authority is often necessary for society to function — to create trust, maintain order, and provide essential public goods. Huemer, on the other hand, reminds us that obedience is not always the result of reasoned agreement, but can come from habits, symbols, and psychological pressure. By looking at both views together, we gain a deeper understanding of the role authority plays in our lives — not just as a structure that organizes society, but as an influence that shapes our thinking and behavior. This dual perspective helps us recognize the value of political authority when it is fair and effective, but also warns us of its dangers when it goes unquestioned. A truly responsible citizen is not just obedient, but thoughtful — willing to ask whether the authority they follow is justified, and whether their compliance serves justice or merely tradition.