Forums » The Lounge » Read Thread

Otherwise known as the "superior orders" defense, it's the argument that a subordinate cannot be held responsible for a crime because he was ordered by his superior to do so. 

What are your thoughts on this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Well, there were a lot of Nazis that tried to use that defense. I think we all know how that worked out...

You always have a choice to do one action or another even if it means things would go badly for you if you disobeyed, saying you were just following orders doesn't really work since you personally are still responsible for killing an innocent (Or several innocents)

Basically you better just hope that you're on the winning side of whatever conflict you're on so you don't get accused of war crimes.

Or otherwise have the favor or sympathy of those judging you. Committing an atrocity once because you were suddenly ordered to do it and then say going AWOL and hiding altogether because you couldn't do it again might get you some leniency rather than if you were committing them day in day out until your side finally lost.

What if it's "shoot or be shot"?

If they couldn't decide in King Lear, then we ain't gona do any better here on CYS haha!

Everyone has a choice, and despite a superior asking me to do something, I would never fulfill an order that is morally wrong.  GoT reference: I really dig the part where Rob Stark basically tells the guy that "just watched" the atrocity, to be hanged last so he can watch everyone else.

I would, in certain situations. 

If I have a gun pointed at me, it's not like I'm going to say no.

But you're Spartacus, you bow to no man!!!

Hey man, being shot wasn't in the job description.

But being crucified was. 

RADICAL FREEEEEEEEDOOOOOOM

What

http://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Jean_Paul_Sartre

Seriously though, on a moral standpoint there's no right to murder others just so you can live, since even going off value you're not gonna know if that 1+ person(s) are better or worse than you, etc. It's tricky, but even at gunpoint you can always just do anything other thank kill the innocent guy.

From a legal stand point I think you should search up 'Nuremberg Trials' and see if it held up haha.

Exactly, if I tell Malk to go execute a bunch of Warrior Cat fans and then he shoots 10 of them every day for 6 years until the War Crimes tribunal stops him from doing it anymore, he's hardly going to be in a position to say "Hey I'm innocent, I was just following the orders of Evil Uncle End Master."

He can't just pass the blame on to his superior (who has long escaped to Argentina by now) because Malk's actions were ultimately his own and the blood of hundreds of WC Fans are on his rodent paws.

He'll just have to face the consequences of his actions and pay the 10 dollar fine.

This response is just.... awesome

*and get a custom CYS trophy for his troubles.

But if you told him that if he didn't do it you would kill him with ebola monkeys- it'd be a different story.

Well this brings up the possible leniency situation I mentioned in my first post.

Let's go through an example:

So it's another day in CYStia and I tell Malk, Sentinel and Drako to bring out the WC Fans so we can take a head count to make sure none of them have escaped during the night.

This is a routine thing since as far as they know, we're just holding them prisoner until they supposedly get relocated to Camp Derp.

Suddenly I say to the 3 of them: "Yeah, fuck all that. We're just going to start killing them and save time." And I give the order to start killing them and if they disobey that order then I sic my Ebola ridden monkeys on them.

Drako obviously starts enthusiastically killing WCs right away all the while saying "At last! This is what I was born to do!"

Sentinel says while he find WCs repulsive, he cannot kill them just for the shits and giggles of it and feels it's morally wrong to do so. I respect his decision and then promptly sic ebola ridden monkeys on him for disobeying orders. He dies horribly under a flurry of bloody diseased primate rage.

Malk doesn't want to die in such a gruesome way which is understandable, so he reluctantly kills the WCs and by doing so committing an atrocity.

Now if at this point Malk already makes plans to escape and sneak off to CoG to seek asylum or even perhaps try to "lessen" the horror by convincing me that some of WC Fans should be spared for slave labor instead then maybe he'll get leniency for that one act of brutality since he tried to stop it or at least not participate anymore and perhaps it can be argued that it was made under extreme duress and unusual circumstances. (He pays a 5 dollar fine instead of 10)

However, if he just sticks around, does nothing and follows orders then he's just as guilty as I am. If he's doing it long enough, I'd argue that he's probably become like Drako and grown to get kick out of slaughtering WC Fans, which of course really makes him guilty.

Honestly, who in their right mind would care about morals when they're about to be shot in the head?

Uh, any decent human being? :P

Well, I admit it'd be a tough choice, but I think most people would kill to save themselves. 

Would they? I wonder. I'm not sure if "most" is true, but it's not like we can test everyone on earth. Still, humanity, for all its faults, can be surprisingly stubborn about morals.

Most people don't want to die, you know.

Most people also don't want to commit war crimes, you know.

Of course they don't want to, but people do crazy shit when faced with death.

Read Hunger Games and Battle Royale for examples.

They do, yes, but don't tell me that people aren't willing to die for their beliefs. Hell, that's one of the big reasons for going to war to begin with.

There's a huge difference between hearing about war and fighting in one. The reason people sign up to fight is because they don't know what kind of stuff goes on at the front line. 

Not many people have that kind of strength.

There's a huge difference between hearing about war and fighting in one. The reason people sign up to fight is because they don't know what kind of stuff goes on at the front line. 

Not many people have that kind of strength.

When people say "that kind of strength" about going off to fight in war, don't they typically mean "the ability to pull the trigger" and to do whatever they have to in order to get out alive / follow orders? >_> Like, say, committing war crimes. So ... aren't you kind of supporting my argument?
 

I was referring to the "people are willing do die for their beliefs" part in your last post.

Oh, I know. But your argument against it is about how the average person doesn't have the strength to stomach war which is the OTHER reason people would refuse to commit a crime like that. *shrug* They are contradictory reasons, sure, but that doesn't make either less valid.

(By the way, The Hunger Games is not a good example. You see plenty of people putting themselves in peril for their beliefs, the protagonist is even meant to exemplify that and is used to lead a revolution--while being unable to kill pretty much anyone in the arena, being willing to die rather than giving her captors the satisfaction of watching her kill Peta, and sobbing over the death of her opponent, Rue. Also, is anyone else having trouble with the forums? My browser keeps timing out.) 

I'd say people who refuse to sacrifice themselves for others are morally weaker IMO.

I never said they weren't.

(I'm getting way too distracted from writing, lol. Interesting as this has been, I'll bow out for now.)

Way to cite fiction novels hahaha. To be honest I'd be surprised if you, Coins, had the balls to actually kill a human being, bawling at your feet for mercy. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be.

Reason why so many Nazis were able to do it was because culturally they grew up learning that Jews, retards and cripples were essentially non-humans, and even then you'll hear plenty of cases where a German would give up their life for one.

Thank you, that's basically my point. I'll grant Coins that a lot of people just went along with what they were told, but hell ... even with the mental conditioning, a lot of people in Germany didn't know wtf was really going on until it was over. The people directly involved sure did, but quite a few wanted to stop it / stop Hitler, and some did, in fact, die trying... 

Battle Royale is good at showing why the students do what they do- I'd say it's a good example even if it's fiction.

Hopefully I will never have to.

Those people had the moral strength to die for their beliefs. Even with the extreme brainwashing, I think only the most emotionless and cruel members of the SS didn't hesitate or regret what they did at all.

Battle Royale is a novel with no references. If you want to argue for that, you'll have to point at something that involves real people (so history).

What's your point?

Look at my profile pic for an example. 

Just saying.

Example of what? Gladiators were usually slaves or criminals that were forced to fight each other to the death. Those that killed lived to die and those that refused to died. That was in a situation where the 'enemy' was actually fighting back, not groveling at your feet.

Uh, dude, do you know about the whole "crowd decides who lives and who dies" thing? You had to kill a person kneeling/lying at your feet.

.... You do realize that youre using criminals as an example, in an era with absolutely terrible records, right? Like, we have no idea how many actually did it, if it actially happened, aaaannd they were fucking criminals

Not all of them were criminals- some were prisoners of war or slaves.

It happened: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator#Combat

Prisoners of war and slaves were pretty desperate people, you know, and were probably considered criminals anyway.

What's your point?

The point is that the average person should be judged if he takes another's life in spite of hit (when not in conflict with that particular person).

I'm saying that in the case of "shot or be shot", leniency or pardon should be granted to the offender.

Depends on the case and what tribulations the man went through to try and limit the situation.

So the dregs of society, lol. 

It happened, yes. We dont know the records of how/what was done, ha ha. You seem to be taking for grante that they all killled everyone and never ever even considered sparing them, ha ha.

I'm not saying that, for god's sake.

Coins this is officially the stupidest thing I've read all day, and I've been having to watch this thread.

Surely even you can comprehend that fiction cannot possibly be used as an example of "what people do" when faced with a given situation.

It's that author opinion of what their character would do when faced with a situation they made up.

Let's not even get started on why hunger games is an idiotic dystopia that could never come to exist in the actual world.

Dang, you gonna let him call you out like that, Spartacus? ahah.

Okay, that was pretty stupid.

Hopefully as many people as possible.

Allowing this defense seems like it would lead to fewer people refusing to follow orders, in scenarios where following those orders would involve committing war crimes. 

Depends on the circumstances. If you just do it, then no, you're just looking for excuses. If you're being blackmailed in some significant way, then you really can't expect everyone to not do it and face the shitty consequences.

Of course it depends on the severity of what your superior orders you to do and the individual's own moral compass - what they're willing to do or not. Plus you have to include factors like blackmail, threats to you and close family/friends. But what I'm saying is I think Superior orders may be a legitimate argument for some people. It really depends on the person and there isn't a correct answer. That's why such court cases are always so difficult to close.

Check out this experiment though. People are willing to do horrible things more often than not, but then again - killing or hurting someone whilst you can see them with your own eyes is a different matter than harming someone indirectly. To kill or hurt another person without any particular reason for doing so is an absolutely horrible thing that goes completely against morality. In the case of the Holocaust or just WWII in general, the reason why the Nazis and Japs were able to kill off so many people was that they were conditioned to believe that the people they were harming were not, or were less than human beings.