He further divides the word "conscience" into authoritarian and humanistic. Authoritarian is "the internalized voice of an authority whom we are eager to please" (page ), whereas humanistic is "voice present in all humans and is solely independent from reward and punishment" (page ) However he takes the word authoritarian and divides on that into rational and irrational authority. Irrational authority is "authority by use of force t is only advantageous to one party and not both parties" (page ) Rational authority is "the authority of reason where both parties benefit" (page ) He finally begins to question why people find it so difficult to disobey. One reason is that historically, there existed an elitist minority and a poorer majority (class system).Obedience, in the past was characterized by virtue and disobedience was characterized by an act of sin. The elitist minority enjoyed the "finer things in life" while the poorer majority were "left with the crumbs". If the minority wished for the system to remain, and also have the poorer majority serve them, obedience by force was needed to maintain the status quo. This method was bad because the consequence of what the poorer majority might do; "One day, the many might have the means to overthrow the few by force" (page 363). Another reason why people cannot disobey is because of the feeling of absolute safety people attribute to listening to some form of institution (church, school, or the state government, for example). Fromm reasons that in order for a person to disobey, courage and the power to think for yourself is needed. He concludes the essay by making a statement "At this point in history, the capacity to doubt, to criticize, and to disobey may be all that stands between a future for mankind and the end of civilization" (page 364).
