The Crucible: Act I To challenge [authority] anywhere is to threaten it everywhere. (p. viii) Although challenging authority may cause civil unrest and disobedience of crucial laws, thus threatening citizens, it also allows for safety and the benefit of the people through an effort to improve social, political, or economic status. Challenging authority can be either a negative factor or for a positive benefit; however, there is a consequence that follows every challenge.
To challenge authority solely for an individual benefit that is harmful to the rest of society is selfish and unacceptable, but to do so in a manner of responsibility to society is far greater and welcomed by authority. When Hitler was in power as the dictator in Germany he challenged many authorities, but not for the good of the people, he was conducting the country and people in a fashion that satisfied himself, yet harmful and unsafe to others.
Therefore, due to his irrational behavior and rule, he was drowning so because he had no solution to solve his problem to win the battle, so he eventually ended up committing suicide. On the other hand, in cases such as the Civil Rights Movement when Martin Luther King Jr. and his followers were challenging authority in order to receive equal rights because there treatment was tremendously inferior to the treatment whites received, were carried out to protect the people and benefit the well-being of African Americans.
Instances where the people as a whole benefit from a challenge to authority and work towards the good of the people to allow them the benefit is very much appropriate. Therefore, challenging authority anywhere is to threaten it everywhere, so it is best to be challenged in cases with the people as a whole in mind and the benefit isn’t contributed to a sole person that might risk harm or unsafe measures to the rest of society.