"Just following orders"

[GoAwayVifs]

snip

It's a lab experiment (doesn't mean that it will reflects real-life)

The experiment may actually reflect conformity rather than obedience

Also, it varies from culture to culture.

The so much of modern psychology is based on the fact the experiments in lab are accurate reflections of real life. The Milgram experiment does more than show that people just cave to authority. It also shows what is known as the 'foot-in-the-door' phenomenon, which is a tendency for people who have agreed to a small request, or order, to be more likely to comply with a much larger request later. Yes, this has been observed across cultures.

Your actions and your beliefs are strongly linked. Performing an action will change your beliefs. This is the basis for actual "brainwashing". It is not so easy as to say that any individual solider is completely responsible for his actions.

 

[Asita]

snip

It's a lab experiment (doesn't mean that it will reflects real-life)

The experiment may actually reflect conformity rather than obedience

Also, it varies from culture to culture.

You may want to read up on the link above, as much of what you state here is actually accounted for and tested for. Repetition showed remarkably consistent results internationally and gave an idea of how various variables affected the experiment. Decreasing the distance between the subject and the victim increased refusal rates, and by a similar token, refusal rates rose as the distance between authority and victim apparently increased (lowest compliance results occuring when contact with the authority figure was only via telecom). Conformity actually produced some of the more extreme results in BOTH directions. With the addition of two additional [apparent] subjects, the true test subject's reaction tended to mimick those of the other two. When the two confederates refused to proceed, completion rates for the experiment dropped to 10%. When the confederates continued to the end, so too did 90% of the subjects.

 

[Nazrel]

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.

Nope, crushed it.

You are told what you need to know and you're progressively taught to dehumanise your enemy. "thinking" is far more complex that you think.

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.

Because getting drafted was completely a choice.

People seem to be missing that you are not the only one at risk when you refuse to pull that trigger.

Spouse? Possible concentration camp, or possibly tortured and killed.

Children? Re-education camps... assuming they aren't just killed as an example.

All friends and family are at risk of similar fates.

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

P.S.
I am obviously not assuming modern day U.S. for this example.

 

[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.

 

[Dagda Mor]

If you don't follow the order, your commander will give it to someone else. You're more useful to your own beliefs alive than as a martyr, most of the time. It's best to die for your beliefs when it's most prudent, and live for them otherwise.

 

[shintakie10]

snip

It's a lab experiment (doesn't mean that it will reflects real-life)

The experiment may actually reflect conformity rather than obedience

Also, it varies from culture to culture.

How exactly would it reflect conformity when participants were brought in 1 by 1 and never interacted with other participants?

On topic.

I would absolutely love to say its a black and white issue of it is never a good reason, ever in any circumstance. Unfortunately I know better. The Milgram experiment is always the go to thing when it comes to this. We as a people are programmed to listen to authority figures from day 1. We can and, as studies, experiments, even actual circumstances have shown, have done horrible awful things because someone told us to.

Does anyone truly and honestly believe the person with the gun to their head with the order to either shoot that person on their knees or be shot and then the person on their knees will get shot is a horrible person for choosin to pull the trigger? In my case? No...no I dont. I would love to believe that if I was in that situation I'd be able to say no and be perfectly willin to die knowin that at least I wasn't the one who took that life, but I can not say definitively if I could.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[xPixelatedx]

Why does it hold any weight at all?

For the same reason Kings and Queens held power, we allow it. All the power we grant people is technically all in our imaginations, however it's real because we act on it, if we didn't act on it then it wouldn't be. Funny how that works.

I hold "Just Following Orders" in the same category of BS as 'No backsies' and 'Artistic Integrity'. It's a shield people put up to try and defend the wrongs they've done when they don't have any legitimate defense otherwise, and the only reason why we let that slide is because we let it slide.

 

[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 too 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".

 

[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.