When should “I was only following orders?” invoke sympathy?

[Varysblackfyre321]

If someone is working under a totalitarian state that’s conscripted them to fight in a war is it really as morally simple as expecting them to rebel against heinous orders?

Especially when it’s a gamble on whether there’s another entity that would/could offer them salvation?
 

I understand there’s a risk of how this could be abused to excuse even the top command of the worst regimes.

I still feel troubled with the idea a man barely out of his boyhood who’d been told to commit a war crime or go to prison or be killed by his peers, being executed/or imprisoned for doing something he thought he needed to do survive a situation he’s not really responsible for.

[BigFatCoward]

If the consequences are equal or worse than the action. 

[SeanF]

23 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

If someone is working under a totalitarian state that’s conscripted them to fight in a war is it really as morally simple as expecting them to rebel against heinous orders?

Especially when it’s a gamble on whether there’s another entity that would/could offer them salvation?
 

I understand there’s a risk of how this could be abused to excuse even the top command of the worst regimes.

I still feel troubled with the idea a man barely out of his boyhood who’d been told to commit a war crime or go to prison or be killed by his peers, being executed/or imprisoned for doing something he thought he needed to do survive a situation he’s not really responsible for.

The level of responsibility, and the realistic alternatives to committing atrocities, are obviously big factors in determining moral culpability

Adolf Eichmann was far more morally culpable than his typist was, for example.

Men who worked in concentration camps or served with the Einsatzgruppen chose to do so.  They were never compelled.  So, their level of culpability is very high.

Men who served as kapos did so because the alternatives were so awful, and they were trying to save their own lives and mitigate their treatment.  So, their moral culpability is much less.

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Men who worked in concentration camps or served with the Einsatzgruppen chose to do so.  

I’d be legitimately surprised if most men who worked at concentration camps had much input in where they were stationed and what they did.

We are talking about a military here, one working for a totalitarian regime who’d made it policy to imprison/execute dissidents of any sort.

18 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Adolf Eichmann was far more morally culpable than his typist was, for example.

I do agree with this.

I think it’s fair to think The higher the chain of command is the less they get to claim to be an autonomous cog.

 

[Mentat]

Sympathy is subjective and up to the individual.

Legally, following orders one knew or should have known to be unlawful would likely not be an adequate defense, though coercion or duress might be. One would have to establish that not following said orders would result in immediate serious bodily injury or death (or a reasonable fear of such) and that there was no reasonable way to avoid following the orders or alternative course of action available.

The problem, really, is who are you ultimately accountable to. A soldier in a victorious army is likely accountable to his commanding officer, while a general might be accountable to a president or head of state. Likely they will do well if they followed orders, and not so well if they didn't. A captured soldier, or a general or head of state of a defeated nation, might be accountable to the enemy, on the other hand, in which case they'd better lawyer up and/or start polishing their story (which hopefully includes a suitable scapegoat). Vae Victis is as true now as it ever was.

[SeanF]

52 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I’d be legitimately surprised if most men who worked at concentration camps had much input in where they were stationed and what they did.

We are talking about a military here, one working for a totalitarian regime who’d made it policy to imprison/execute dissidents of any sort.

I do agree with this.

I think it’s fair to think The higher the chain of command is the less they get to claim to be an autonomous cog.

 

Members of SS Totenkopf - and its female equivalent - were all volunteers, not conscripts.  Moral culpability is obviously lessened for the kapos, and perhaps some of the prisoners of war who volunteered to serve as guards, rather than starve themselves. 

When it comes to actual soldiers committing atrocities, and claiming superior orders as a defence, one generally looks to the principle of "manifest illegality".  Rape, child murder, torturing civilians are manifestly illegal activities (at least, post 1945).  Executing people who your commanding officer tells you are dangerous partisans (and who later turn out to have been harmless) is not. In the latter case, superior orders ought to be a defence.

[Mentat]

30 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Executing people who your commanding officer tells you are dangerous partisans (and who later turn out to have been harmless) is not. In the latter case, superior orders ought to be a defence.

Executing prisoners (whether they're partisans, spies or POWs) is a violation of the Geneva Convention unless said execution results from a sentence issued by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. A soldier should know this, and thus doing so should be considered a war crime, regardless of if they were given an order.

[SeanF]

2 hours ago, Mentat said:

Executing prisoners (whether they're partisans, spies or POWs) is a violation of the Geneva Convention unless said execution results from a sentence issued by a court offering the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality. A soldier should know this, and thus doing so should be considered a war crime, regardless of if they were given an order.

Sure, but if a soldier is told by his commanding officer that this is the sentence of a court martial, he doesn't have query that.  

[Mentat]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Sure, but if a soldier is told by his commanding officer that this is the sentence of a court martial, he doesn't have query that.  

Yes, but this would be a different defense. The soldier would have to argue not that he executed the prisoner because his commanding officer told him so (though they might have), but that he did so because he believed the prisoner had been legally condemned to death by a court martial. His defense would succeed based on how reasonable said belief was. The fact that the soldier had been lied to (or misinformed) by his commanding officer is definitely something his lawyer would bring up.

[Varysblackfyre321]

13 hours ago, Mentat said:

A soldier should know this, and thus doing so should be considered a war crime, regardless of if they were given an order.

What if they can demonstrate they weren’t formally taught this?

[Larry of the Lawn]

12 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What if they can demonstrate they weren’t formally taught this?

How would they possibly demonstrate they weren't formally taught not to murder a prisoner?  

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

How would they possibly demonstrate they weren't formally taught not to murder a prisoner?  

I’d guess at pointing to the military they serve not really giving instruction on what is an unlawful treatment of combatants or civilians and thus one they can object to with full backing of the state.

15 hours ago, SeanF said:

Members of SS Totenkopf - and its female equivalent - were all volunteers, not conscripts.  Moral culpability is obviously lessened for the kapos, and perhaps some of the prisoners of war who volunteered to serve as guards, rather than starve themselves. 

Also thought I sai so earlier but I seem to have forgotten; I legit didn’t know this and it does make fully morally condemning the only virtuous  recourse.

11 hours ago, Mentat said:

but this would be a different defense. The soldier would have to argue not that he executed the prisoner because his commanding officer told him so (though they might have), but that he did so because he believed the prisoner had been legally condemned to death by a court martia

Otherwise wanton slaughter, such as mass executions  could be easily excused.

[Mentat]

10 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

What if they can demonstrate they weren’t formally taught this?

I don't think this would make a difference. The principle of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not) would apply.

[SeanF]

16 minutes ago, Mentat said:

I don't think this would make a difference. The principle of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law excuses not) would apply.

I think a lot would depend on the relevant military conventions.  If one operates in an environment where the rule is that quarter is offered at the start of a fight, but will not be granted after a fight has started, then the execution of prisoners would not be considered a crime.

[Mentat]

12 minutes ago, SeanF said:

If one operates in an environment where the rule is that quarter is offered at the start of a fight, but will not be granted after a fight has started, then the execution of prisoners would not be considered a crime.

What rule would that be? Not international humanitarian law, for sure. As I said, it would be explicitly against the Geneva Convention. If by environment you mean a historical setting like the War of the Roses, a fantasy setting like The War of the Ring or a back alley knife fight then, sure, whatever, but as I understood it, the OP was mostly referring to the war in Ukraine.

[AverageGuy]

When you're on a jury. No matter how bad the law is, you're only a finder of fact and therefore bear no responsibility for the consequences of the defendant being found guilty of said law.

[Larry of the Lawn]

50 minutes ago, AverageGuy said:

When you're on a jury. No matter how bad the law is, you're only a finder of fact and therefore bear no responsibility for the consequences of the defendant being found guilty of said law.

If I was on a jury and I thought the law sucked or didn't apply I'd push for acquittal, isn't there something like jury nullification for situations like this? *Summon board lawyers*

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

isn't there something like jury nullification for situations like this?

Yes:

Quote

A jury's knowing and deliberate rejection of the evidence or refusal to apply the law either because the jury wants to send a message about some social issue that is larger than the case itself, or because the result dictated by law is contrary to the jury's sense of justice, morality, or fairness. 

Jury nullification is a discretionary act, and is not a legally sanctioned function of the jury.  It is considered to be inconsistent with the jury's duty to return a verdict based solely on the law and the facts of the case.  The jury does not have a right to nulification, and counsel is not permitted to present the concept of jury nullification to the jury.  However, jury verdicts of acquittal are unassailable even where the verdict is inconsistent with the weight of the evidence and instruction of the law.

 

[AverageGuy]

21 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If I was on a jury and I thought the law sucked or didn't apply I'd push for acquittal, isn't there something like jury nullification for situations like this? *Summon board lawyers*

Yes, board lawyers! Tell us of those times you've argued for jury nullification and the bailiff did not tackle you!

(More seriously, I am aware of jury nullification. And if you're going to have juries, I'm for it. If not, I believe all trials should just be bench trials. I feel like those trained in the profession would be better suited to determining the facts of the case. But that's counter to the instructions received by every jury ever)

[DireWolfSpirit]

Just food for thought, I'm gonna ask rhetorically-

How many of us, at times, have carried through with the most asinine of tasks at work, because the boss said to do so?

I know I have witnessed such behavior far and wide for years.