"Just following orders"

[Frankster]

Die now and continue to seek enlightenment in the next life

I envy the belief in an afterlife, it does make situations like this much more clearcut if there is a karma factor. Not to mention not being scared of death anymore since you don't see it as an ending.

Otherwise regarding "just following orders"... Depends greatly on the situation and context imo.
As well as what is involved. This is a very morally grey area overall i think.

 

[Kermi]

It's nice to say you'd just follow orders, but when that option is presented in TV and movies the hero who takes the moral high ground can walk away and suffer no negative consequences. It's the easy option and the right thing to do.

The coward who follows the orders is seen as intimidated, with no moral fortitude, or is pursuing his own ambitions.

In reality, we work because we need to earn money. I might not 100% agree with something but the fact is if I don't do it? My job's at risk. I lose my job and my bills don't get paid. I have no power. No food. No apartment. My wife doesn't get her medication. So sure, it's nice to say I won't ever compromise my principles, but in a situation where I don't have a higher authority to appeal to, where it's me vs. the world and I stand to lose everything?

Can't say I'd hold fast in that scenario.

 

[Frankster]

snippy

I take it you're a buddhist? Perhaps I should rephrase it to "i envy your spiritual beliefs" xP
Not gonna derail this thread with a religious discussion but i do find reincarnation more believable then the idea of a fluffly white paradise and a fiery pit of torment for "goodies" and "baddies" respectively. Otherwise the quest for enlightment is also a worthy pursuit.
To be continued a relevant thread hopefully

 

[bauke67]

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.

You're right, but the reasoning behind killing the other person shouldn't be "just following orders" but "It was me or him". No difference in the choice, just a better excuse, I think.

 

[Mr F.]

Just following orders is a fair enough excuse.

Milgram proved that the average American is willing to potentially kill someone if ordered to by a figure of authority, with a compliance rate of above 90% if they cannot see their victim. Add deindividuization into the mix and any number of other proven psychological concepts and bam, Just following orders carries a hell of a lot of weight. You can either claim it does not, ignore all psychological evidence, or you can accept that if push came to shove, chances are you would follow an order that you personally find morally wrong. Many in the Milgram experiment cried, shook, hyperventilated. Yet they still carried out the order, despite no threat, no true coercion (Only phrases such as "The experiment must go on" were used). They hated what they were doing yet they continued (At least, two thirds of those involved continued when they could see and year the "Learner" screaming in pain).

When you consider the nature of the Camps (Because that is what is really being talked about here) the deindividuization of those involved (Both the minorities being annihilated and the guards committing the acts) and the fact that in many cases (The chambers) those committing the horrendous acts could not see the victims, could not hear them (After they moved away from the mobile gas chambers at least), they were simply conforming in the same way that it was proved 90% of those who participated in Milgram experiments would.

Combined with the propaganda and the fact that they were being ordered to do such things by their direct military superiors, well, their actions may have been "evil". But now we can understand them.

*heads off to find a quote from Milgram*

"I would say, on the basis of having observed a thousand people in the experiment and having my own intuition shaped and informed by these experiments, that if a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town."

Chances are any of us would commit an act of extreme violence if asked to by someone in a position of authority over us. None of us think we would. Milgram thought very few people would. The experiment was carried out hundreds of times in different forms, including asking people to torture a puppy. Hell, in the 1920's someone managed to get countless students to decapitate a rat they were holding in their hand, simply through the power of suggestion (Not coercion) and being in a position of authority (Although he did not make the connection).

I wish the experiment had been carried out upon soldiers. I believe the rates of compliance would have been far higher.

All of us have the capability to be "Evil".

Never forget it.

 

[Gilhelmi]

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 just read about that experiment. It amazed me.

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.

That is easy to say, but if you have a rifle to your head and told 'shoot the civilian or die' then it becomes different. Even if the coercion is not that extreme, the urge too obey is powerful and strongly trained into soldiers of every military in the world.

It is easy to say 'its a choice' but it is hard to make that choice.

I pray no one here ever has too make that "choice".

I made my choice long before it comes to that.

So have I. I think, but it is still case by case.

Though I was thinking about this subject a bit. What if a police officer was ordered to raid a daycare center because they were told that the facility was dealing drugs on the side. Now would you raid the daycare traumatizing the kids, or go knock on the door and risk the daycare center drug dealers taking the kids hostage? I think that for the police its a no win situation.

That is kind-of what I mean though. If a military officer gives you an order too shoot a person he believes to be an enemy combatant, you have too shoot. Unless of course they are an obvious civilian but in this current war there is no such thing.

This is perhaps the hardest ethical question too ask.

 

[senordesol]

Conditioning is everything.

Members of the military are conditioned to follow orders from day one of boot camp. No matter how embarrassing, demeaning, or difficult; you follow orders. It is drilled into you every hour of every day. You wake when they tell you to wake, dress as they instruct you to dress and EXACTLY as they tell you to dress. Your wants, desires, physical needs and individual beliefs are suppressed for the sake of turning you into a soldier.

Yes, the decision to follow each order is itself a separate choice in the most literal sense, but you are conditioned to make the choice to follow the order so easy that it scarcely seems like a choice at all.

That is tough conditioning to fight or ignore.

 

[Mr F.]

snip

So what? Just because most people would do it doesn't mean it's okay or shouldn't be punished.

No.

Just that morality is relative and you should not judge someone harshly for something that you would probably (I would consider 60%+ correlation with probably) end up doing yourself. I am not saying that the men who committed the crimes are innocent.

But in my eyes the men who ordered the crimes are "Guiltier" then those who committed the acts. Once you consider that most would commit the acts and all.

So... Its not ok and those who commit horrendous crimes should be punished for their actions, however the punishment should fit the crime. And considering most, if put in their shoes, would commit the crime, what punishment is fitting? However, those who order the crimes to be committed, those are the ones who are truly to blame in any situation.

I do not hate the police for the brutality during protests, I blame those who order the police to act, those who put de-humanized individuals with shield and baton in situations where they will, chances are, abuse their power. Even though I will be filled with righteous fury when I witness the actions of individuals, I will still attempt to understand that, due to the nature of the situation and crowd mentality, they are not wholly to blame for their actions.

Most of the blame lies in the orders, not those who commit the acts under duress.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Ok... it is time to settle this:

As a military officer myself I often give orders. The art of giving orders in the UK military is a complicated one, and we have many considerations to take before we make an order... the first consideration is 'Are the effects of the order given legal'. If not then the order is not allowed to be made...

Also, if the order is made, then it is the person giving the order that will be in trouble. If the order is ileagal and is carried out then it will be up to a trial to see if it is just the person who made the order, or whether the person who did the ileagal activity is also punished. This depends on how obvious the ilegal activity was, and what information was availiable at the time.

I am also a follower in my role, so I also can tell you that it is ileagal to carry out a known ileagal order, no matter who it comes from, without any repercussions...

(Sorry for spelling/grammar issues, I saw this just as I am leaving work, and have typed as fast as my fingers will take me... I will be back tomorrow!)

EDIT: Last thing before I go... the words at the start of my post are misplaced... I know I am not the gospel word on this, and it is a moral issue as well as a legal issue (although those cross over... it is ilegal for me to do something like order someone to drink a beer. Even though that is a legal activity, the order would not benefit anyone and would then be ilegal) and what I meant by that 'settle this' comment was countering some of the posts before mine with fact...!

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think it's bullshit and doesn't hold water. People should always be accountable for their actions regardless of circumstances. That being said, I think in those situations those giving such orders should be held just as responsible as the ones who carried them out.

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.

Yeah, I've heard of the Milgram experiment. Never the less I still don't think it's an excuse. I don't believe in excuses.

 

[Skratt]

Depends on the context. Those employees at Penn State that "told their boss that there was a boy being raped" should have told the police. I know it's a bad example of just following orders, but I think there was a "tell your superiors" rule at the university and that people didn't tell the police because they were "just following orders".

If your own life is forfeit, it really comes down to your own moral belief. That's probably the only true test of one's own morals is forfeiting your own life just so that you don't have to be the one to pull the trigger, because chances are the trigger is still getting pulled.

I don't know that I wouldn't pull the trigger if I had a gun to my head. My moral belief is nearly as strong as my self-preservation motivation and it would be a tough decision.

For the most part, just following orders is kind of a horse shit cop-out.

 

[Agent Larkin]

While it is not the best excuse in the world it is one that makes sense.

Sure the moral thing to do is refuse an order you don't agree with but when the consequence of saying no is death how many of you honestly, and I mean no internet bravado shit, honestly would choose to give up your own life instead of follow the order?

 

[Bloodstain]

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.

The thing is: Milgram understood his results wrong. His experiment doesn't show that people are willingly aggressive when ordered to be.
His experiment rather proved how humans are averted to inflicting pain unto others, even if a figure of authority tells them to do so -- because almost every single participant showed signs of heavy distress, some even going outright mad.
The problem is: The experiment's leader wasn't just a figure of authority. He was a representative of science, one of the most respected entities in existence. Nobody would dare hindering the progress of science (especially at that time, when science was still much more glorified than it is now).

Erich Fromm outlined this problem very well in his work "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness", a must-read for everyone interested in psychology.

OT: I respect it when people say "I'm just following orders". Usually, the consequences of disobeying are too grave -- most of the time it involves people losing their jobs. I would follow my orders as well in most instances.

 

[Mr F.]

snip

So what? Just because most people would do it doesn't mean it's okay or shouldn't be punished.

No.

Just that morality is relative and you should not judge someone harshly for something that you would probably (I would consider 60%+ correlation with probably) end up doing yourself. I am not saying that the men who committed the crimes are innocent.

*SNIP*.

Not at all, it lies on both of them. Will that duress likely affect them? Sure. Should it be an excuse? No.

It seems we have no middle ground. I accept that those who commit actions are to be blamed for them, however the fact that the action is committed with a reduced level of agency "should" limit how they are punished (although I freely accept this is based on my own moral judgement, which is relative) wheras you believe that both those who commit the action and those who order the action to be committed to be equally blamed.

I wont say "Lets agree to disagree" because that phrase is a weasel phrase and irritates me. However, I will state that any middleground is probably unlikely, both of us have our reasons for our conclusions and neither of us will be changed by a forum post.

But duress does matter. It really does. In my eyes, at least.