"Just following orders"

[Roroshi14]

That phrase is a double edge sword, "just following orders" means you are not personally responsible for your actions, if it is from an accredited official. At least it is supposed to be.

When you're a soldier or what ever you have to put complete trust in your superior, cuz if you dont then you will die. So 'just following orders' is a way for the lower in command to complete a questionable action without the feeling of guilt. Or its supposed to, the truth of the matter is you cant control what people feel.

Finally those who say "I was just following orders" have enough trust in their commander that by the point they do something questionable they believe in what the commander says.

 

[Rawne1980]

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.

Christ, what fantasy is this dragged from?

I spent 12 years in the British Army, more specifically the Para's, a regiment second only in fame for warfare to the SAS.

Never, I repeat NEVER, has anyone been "shot on the spot" for ignoring orders.

Never have I heard of anyone being tried for treason.

Those 2 only happen in the movies.

International court very rarely, if ever, comes down on a soldier it's usually the higher ups.

The odd occasion where an order wasn't followed and it ended in a serious situation then Court Martial was brought on them. Usually dishonourable discharge and that is the end of it.

It may well be different for other countries armies but I never witnessed nor heard of anyone being shot for ignoring orders.

"Accidents" sometimes happen but they never become public knowledge.

 

[Demongeneral109]

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.

That's a bit more circumstantial than you might think, I'm fairly certain that following orders is generally accepted as a defense, if a squad leader gives an unlawful order, his men have been trained to follow them almost unquestioningly, therefore, it is the responsibility of the squad leader of any unlawful action.

At least, I'm pretty sure that's the case

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

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.

Former Air Force guy here. And yeah, when I was in basic training, they established early on that the UCMJ only requires you to obey lawful orders. You actually have a responsibility not to obey unlawful orders ("shoot those fleeing civilians," etc.), even if the president is the one giving them.

 

[False Nobility]

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.

This pretty much sums up the problem with this thread.

Just saying. And you really can't pass that kind of judgement if you aren't a soldier yourself. It's a very different environment out there. Survival instincts trump morality most times.

 

[Kolby Jack]

There's also the consideration that some people don't concern themselves with moral dilemmas in their work, and that paying the rent is more important to them than other people's problems. While they personally wouldn't do the deed in question if they had the choice, by saying they're "just following orders" basically means that their boss(es) delegated the deed onto them and in order to keep their job, they have to do it. Now obviously everyone has limits. Most people won't commit a blatant act of murder or something just for a paycheck, but they might be willing to fire someone, or prevent them from accessing what they want to access.

So yea, it's easy to come down hard on the people who are "just following orders" to do something "mean," but when it's your livelihood on the line, you'll see just how tough of a position they are in.

Oh, it seems my context was a bit off. This is about soldiers? Uh yea, soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines have to follow lawful orders (at least in the US and I assume most other countries). The key word there is LAWFUL. You'd be surprised at what is and is not a lawful order, especially when it comes to taking a life. Most orders to do so are usually "Shoot that guy who's shooting at us!" Not exactly a moral quandary. Now, if a soldier is given and UNLAWFUL order and still follows it, he should absolutely be held at least somewhat accountable, at least because he's a dumb-ass who can't tell when he's being told to do something very, very illegal, and at most because he agreed with the decision. Really the only time it gets hazy is in a serious firefight.

 

[Scow2]

"Moral Cowardice" is the cry of the self-righteous self-superior who never have and likely never will be put in such a position.

You, sir, have just won the thread about a hundred times over with this line.

For ad hominem? Ah, well no surprise that if you think that wins a thread you wouldn't be able to come up with real proof.

Proof of what? Even the most fundamental understanding of brain chemistry demonstrates that people aren't actually in complete control of their thoughts and decisions.

What do you want proved? That people are always capable of making rational decisions? I guess you've never met someone on drugs or alcohol. You COULD argue that they made the decision to get themselves wasted, and I COULD then throw in alcohol/drug dependencies, but there's an even simpler answer: If people are independently capable of making rational decisions, then drugs and alcohol shouldn't be able to impair judgement. And while I'm the only one bringing drugs/alcohol up, it's because it's an obvious case of impaired decision making that shouldn't be possible if your worldview is correct - the brain also produces and manages its own 'decision-impairing' chemicals. If your beliefs on the human power of choice was correct, we could not have medically identifiable and quantifiable neurological disorders ranging from Autism to dyslexia to psychopathy to narcolepsy to Alzheimer's to kleptomania (Among a whole host of other 'manias).

If people were capable of rational thought and decision-making at all times, we wouldn't need mental conditioning - either everyone would be able to figure out and make a decision on short notice at all times, or reaction and decision-making processes would take a LOT longer than they currently do.

People can easily make moral judgement from the comfort of their own home, with all the time in the world and none of the exposure to the process leading up to the decisions made.

We've had proof on the power of "Just following orders" ever since the big event that started the argument - in which Armchair Judgement got the last word in (The Milgram experiment hadn't been conducted yet). However, for that to have been true, it again would have had to mean that a large chunk of the rank-and-file of an entire nation's armed forces were morally bankrupt, which is an absurd notion that lends credence to the whole shebang that indirectly started the argument.

Armchair moralists can decry the actions of others and make themselves feel good about their own self-righteousness while remaining completely free of the circumstances that lead to such actions, but it does nothing to actually solve the problem, and causes greater damage by obscuring it. Everyone has "Could have, would have, should have"s, and there is no proof that they actually change future behaviors.

"Judge not, lest you be judged."

 

[lacktheknack]

Milgra-

INB4 Milgram experiment

Gah.

But yeah... Milgram Experiment. People who are predisposed to follow orders (ie. most people) are far more likely to do things they'd never do otherwise when ordered to.

 

[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.

It's not easy, but you still make the choice to obey.

Its not quite as simple as it being a difficult choice, Milgrams study basically suggest that most people will feel coerced into it because it's an authority figure.

Coercion or not, it's ALWAYS your choice. Authority only has meaning if you decide it does.

Again not that simple. If you're being coerced then it's not exactly your choice anymore is it? You're being forced

No, you're just taking the less painful/easier option.
"Power resides where men think it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall."

Have you actually looked at the Milgram experiment? How do you explain what happened in the confines of 'they were just taking the easier option'?

You're looking at this too black and white

 

[randomsix]

Because sometimes you don't have the whole picture, and the person from whom the order comes does. In this case, if you trust the orderer, you follow the order. If the order turns out to be bad, then your trust was abused.

 

[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.

It's not easy, but you still make the choice to obey.

Its not quite as simple as it being a difficult choice, Milgrams study basically suggest that most people will feel coerced into it because it's an authority figure.

Coercion or not, it's ALWAYS your choice. Authority only has meaning if you decide it does.

Again not that simple. If you're being coerced then it's not exactly your choice anymore is it? You're being forced

No, you're just taking the less painful/easier option.
"Power resides where men think it resides. It's a trick. A shadow on the wall."

Have you actually looked at the Milgram experiment? How do you explain what happened in the confines of 'they were just taking the easier option'?

You're looking at this too black and white

Either you "kill" the guy or you don't: I don't see how it could BE any more black and white!

They weren't told to kill the person, they thought it was a learning experiment. The guy in a lab coat makes them feel they HAVE to continue. They don't want to but they're being manipulated into thinking they have no choice.

You're also coming at this with the assumption that people consciously and rationally make every decision which isn't the case. In a situation like this rationality is the last thing to come into play. They'll have been confused and thought they had to without being able to consider consequences.

It's easy to judge them for this but you have no idea how you'd react in a similar situation.

 

[Dangit2019]

It seems that someone's recently watched X Men: First Class...

OT: If you do something evil, and at any point were held against your will to do it on threat of death, I believe that the argument has definite weight.

However, if you did it because you were acting on evil alone, and your orders were just a permission slip, then you don't have an argument.

 

[Nemesis729]

It really depends, to me at least.

If you're in the military and you ignore an order you could not only lose your job but get a dishonorable discharge, which can literally ruin your life. You'd be hard pressed to get a job at McDonalds with that following you around.

Even in the most exaggerated case, a Nazi soldier who was "Just following orders" would be scoffed at today, but if he didn't do his job he would not only be killed himself, his family could've seen the same end. This doesn't excuse actions, but it's something to keep in mind.