"Just following orders"

[SkellgrimOrDave]

Evening all, just wondering about that little phrase in the title of the thread.

Why does it hold any weight at all?

As a serious point, why do people even consider it a legitimate reason for anything, it's an order, you can disagree with it. There are consequences to disagreeing (none too pretty for most of them) but still, it's a choice. And for some reason it's always seen as reasonable to suggest that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because they were ordered to do so. Despite the fact that it's their choice to carry out the order.

I've always found it a null and void argument not even worth considering, what's everyone elses take on it?

 

[XMark]

So, if someone ordered you to kill someone, with the consequence being that they'll kill you if you don't, you'd take the moral route and sacrifice your own life?

It's easy to pass judgement on someone who was "just following orders" but most of us would do the same if we were actually in that position.

 

[BlueberryMUNCH]

At the end of the day, I guess every case is different and unique...so it's hard to judge that as a legitimate excuse.
I see what you're saying but...ngh.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Depends on the situation, really. For example, disobeying an order from a superior in the military can lead to a dishonorable discharge, something that would follow you around for the rest of your life, making it impossible to find employment. So disobeying an order in that situation, you'd better be able to prove that you had good reason for doing so.

That's also assuming that your life is not at risk for disobeying orders. The Nuremberg defense doesn't work simply because of the scale of their orders, where any decent person would have avoided following those orders.

 

[Hazy992]

INB4 Milgram experiment

But yeah that experiment shows that it's not as easy ad you think to just say no to an authority figure even if you want to.

 

[JeffBergGold]

Most people are weak and bend to authority, naturally they assume everyone is like them and bend to authority as well so people using that excuse believe it is a valid argument (it isn't).

Although, in some cases when a person lively hood is threatened by an authority figure they may have no choice in the scenario. That is very rarely the case though.

 

[SaikyoKid]

INB4 Milgram experiment

But yeah that experiment shows that it's not as easy ad you think to just say no to an authority figure even if you want to.

Curse you Brovengers and your quick and witty remarks! I was totally thinking about that one offhand too...

I was just going to say that it really isn't as easy as one things to simply disagree with an order from someone who is, or at least appears to be, a higher up to yourself.

Look at how many people have to listen to their bosses orders for something a little more mundane. Say a boss has an idea for a company and orders you to go out with it. He isn't exactly the wisest of bosses, but he's yours and you have to carry it out because not listening to what your boss tells you to do isn't exactly going to get you too far in the world. If it goes terribly, terribly wrong and puts the company in a bad way it's much harder to hold the employee accountable as you can the boss.

So yea, I kinda think that just following orders is an excuse in many situations. It's not a total "off the hook" kinda excuse, but it does take a lot of the burden off of the person who was just doing what they were told.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

As they have stated above, the Milgram experiment.

We as people don't enjoy conflict. People tend to follow the orders given to them due to the fact it's an easier option. It's wrong, but history has proven that it is highly common.

It's easy to say "If that were me, I wouldn't have done it!". You learn quickly that you never know what exactly you would do unless you are in that situation at that moment in time. It's impossible to say how you would react, no matter what kind of person you think you are.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Well, soldiers are put in a very bad position from illegal orders, with all three possible outcomes being bad for them.

1. They ignore the order, and their country tries them for treason.

2. They ignore the order, and are shot on the spot.

3. The follow the order, and are tried in international court/there own country if the news comes out.

It is a no win situation, regardless of what they do.

In both national and international courts, however, it is considered a legit defense if the person in question can prove that they had no way to know that their actions were unlawful. Say, you were working as a guard at a military base, and you let in a covered military through the gate. You couldn't and didn't know the people on said truck were being brought to be tortured for info at the time you followed the order to open the gate, it just seemed like any other jeep that rolls in.

The people who actually committed Watergate got off scot free because how could an order from the president not be a lawful one?

 

[Asita]

INB4 Milgram experiment

But yeah that experiment shows that it's not as easy ad you think to just say no to an authority figure even if you want to.

Well now that you've brought it up, it seems only fair to link to its synopsis: The Milgram Experiment. Also of note is the Superior Orders defense.

Long story short though, it's actually a fairly defensible position. In fact, a cynical man might say that we've been trained to follow orders since we were young. One might even say it's in our nature. After all, how many children do their homework simply because they enjoy the work itself? More often than not, it's because they were told to do so, both by their parents and by their teachers. Do you go to work because you want to, or because you have to? Was that last project you did a labor of love or a the result of you simply being assigned it? How much thought have you ever given to each of the laws you obey? We listen to people in apparent authority and often obey their commands even if we are personally averse to them. This is compounded when there are apparent negative effects to disobeying orders (Take Nazi Germany for instance. Those concentration camps they're so infamous for housed people convicted of treason in addition to their more famous victims).

It's easy to condemn without experience. It's easy to say that you'd take the moral highground or the make the more difficult choice. It's even easy to believe that much. When you're actually put into that situation, however, things become a LOT more complicated, and turns many into hypocrites. Whether or not a given speaker would be one of those hypocrites, however, is nearly impossible to tell before they are thrust into a comparable situation.

 

[mad825]

INB4 Milgram experiment

But yeah that experiment shows that it's not as easy ad you think to just say no to an authority figure even if you want to.

I don't really think you can compare the Milgram experiment to a military organisation. soldiers are not expected to ask questions and are trained to follow orders from a superior officers. Disobeying is grounds for punishment.

Coming from Freud, it's more justifiable that unjustifiable due to that we all subconsciously have irrational and dark desires.

Nevertheless, Do you blame the man or the gun when someone gets shot? Low ranked soldiers are tools to do the job not the reason behind it.

 

[renegade7]

Conscripted enemy combatants can use this one, I think. It may be that they had the option to kill/hurt/whatever someone, or be killed themselves.

 

[BOOM headshot65]

As a serious point, why do people even consider it a legitimate reason for anything, it's an order, you can disagree with it. There are consequences to disagreeing (none too pretty for most of them) but still, it's a choice. And for some reason it's always seen as reasonable to suggest that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions because they were ordered to do so. Despite the fact that it's their choice to carry out the order.

Actually, from what I understand of military court marshels, "I was following orders" is NOT a ligitimate excuse and will still get you thrown in jail (and FEDERAL jail which is 10X worse than even the worse super-max) for a very long time. In fact, the military has actually praised soldiers who disobeyed orders to save lives, such as a gunship pilot who threatened to fire on his fellow soldier to try and stop My Lai. Under normal situations, treason punishable by death......the military gave him the Medal of Honor.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, it DOESN'T hold any weight, you see.

The only thing that can possibly hold weight is if you took these orders and didn't see anything wrong with them. But if you knew this was going to cause a shitstorm, you've got nothing.

 

[Nimzabaat]

From my military experience, you're trained to follow orders without questioning them. Brainwashed is an appropriate term. I worked as part of a armoured vehicle crew and when you heard an order you just did it.

Funny story; I was driving a medium load truck (not exactly an agile vehicle) with a bunch of instructors in the back out to our camp. It was icey and the officer beside me told me to take a route I was unfamiliar with. Approximately 15 m from a road he just said "turn here". It was an order so I locked up the brakes, slid the truck in sideways and gunned it. I made the turn and had everyone in the back thinking they were going to die. Good times...

 

[mad825]

Nevertheless, Do you blame the man or the gun when someone gets shot? Low ranked soldiers are tools to do the job not the reason behind it.

Can the gun think? Yes? Well then I'll blame them both.

swinged and missed the entire point.

You are told what you need to know and you're progressively taught to dehumanise (and to unleash short bursts of anger) your enemy. "thinking" is far more complex that you think.

 

[mad825]

Irrelevant. You still make choices. Plus you made the choice to become a tool. Fully responsible for it all. Except for reasons of ignorance, but that would involve a bigger plan.

Then congratulations to my friend. You've just solved which scientists/philosophers couldn't solve in 2 centuries (and still haven't) in less than a minute.

Just because us humans act all smart doesn't mean we aren't still cavemen.