"I was just following orders."

[Gawd]

"I was just following orders." Is it ever a valid argument for justifying what you did?

[mistermack]

"I was just following orders." Is it ever a valid argument for justifying what you did?

Yeh. If you're handing out aid.

[charlou]

"I was just following orders." Is it ever a valid argument for justifying what you did?

In context of doing something that goes against ones personal ethics ... I think self-preservation is a strong motivational factor for decisions we make.

[Magicziggy]

"I was just following orders." Is it ever a valid argument for justifying what you did?

No. It is a reason, but not a valid argument that justifies it.

If you choose to abrogate responsibility for your actions to some higher authority, you are still responsible for the original decision to do so. Whether the system accepts this as an argument is a completely different matter.

[charlou]

Do you think a motive of self-preservation is a valid justification?

Is the notion of valid justification even appropriate? If a reason is genuine, isn't it therefore valid?

[Magicziggy]

Possibly. But if I (for example) joined up as a soldier and I was given orders to kill civilians, I would have to follow those orders. And if death would result from not following those orders, it would seem that it is a justification to following them.

But if I joined up in the full knowledge of what following orders means, then at the point of signing up I am saying I am prepared to assume the ethics of a higher authority.

[charlou]

Possibly. But if I (for example) joined up as a soldier and I was given orders to kill civilians, I would have to follow those orders. And if death would result from not following those orders, it would seem that it is a justification to following them.

But if I joined up in the full knowledge of what following orders means, then at the point of signing up I am saying I am prepared to assume the ethics of a higher authority.

I agree.

A few variations then ...

Conscription (obviously, but not insignificantly)

Naive understanding and expectation about the agenda of the higher authority.

Agreement and acceptance of the agenda of the higher authority on signing up, but changing position on some/all aspects of the agenda later.

Knowledge of the agenda while in disagreement on signing up to it, but signing up for other reasons of self-preservation ... for example, pressure from family/society, or perceived lack of any other options.

[Magicziggy]

Possibly. But if I (for example) joined up as a soldier and I was given orders to kill civilians, I would have to follow those orders. And if death would result from not following those orders, it would seem that it is a justification to following them.

But if I joined up in the full knowledge of what following orders means, then at the point of signing up I am saying I am prepared to assume the ethics of a higher authority.

I agree.

A few variations then ...

Conscription (obviously, but not insignificantly)

Naive understanding and expectation about the agenda of the higher authority.

Agreement and acceptance of the agenda of the higher authority on signing up, but changing position on some/all aspects of the agenda later.

Knowledge of the agenda while in disagreement on signing up to it, but signing up for other reasons of self-preservation ... for example, pressure from family/society, or perceived lack of any other options.

The last is the most interesting. But they are all worthy of further thought.

[Gawd]

I'm more interested in the legal implications. If you get orders to kill or forcefully take, are you absolved of legal responsibility?

[Magicziggy]

I'm more interested in the legal implications. If you get orders to kill or forcefully take, are you absolved of legal responsibility?

Shoot first, get the best legal defence after.

I know nothing about law. But civil law and military law I'm sure will differ on this.

[charlou]

War crimes tibunals shed some light on that question. Leaders are brought to trial.

[Magicziggy]

War crimes tibunals shed some light on that question. Leaders are brought to trial.

I think Gawd has a point then, because War Crime Tribunals are the domain of the victor. There is no law that protects the loser in a war.

Why is George W still at large? And Tony Blair for that matter. Probably many others.

[Seth]

Depends on the orders, and who is giving them, and whether they are lawful orders.

US soldiers are explicitly required NOT to obey unlawful orders by a superior, and may be held liable if they do. In other words, they are expected to know what the rules of engagement are and abide by those rules even (especially) in the face of illegal orders to violate them.

[Seth]

War crimes tibunals shed some light on that question. Leaders are brought to trial.

I think Gawd has a point then, because War Crime Tribunals are the domain of the victor. There is no law that protects the loser in a war.

Why is George W still at large? And Tony Blair for that matter. Probably many others.

Because they haven't committed any crimes, that's why. I know you'd like to think they have, but what you think, and what the legal facts are, are radically different I'm afraid.

[charlou]

Good points, Seth ...

although ...

War crimes tibunals shed some light on that question. Leaders are brought to trial.

I think Gawd has a point then, because War Crime Tribunals are the domain of the victor. There is no law that protects the loser in a war.

Why is George W still at large? And Tony Blair for that matter. Probably many others.

Because they haven't committed any crimes, that's why. I know you'd like to think they have, but what you think, and what the legal facts are, are radically different I'm afraid.

As Mz says, what's considered legal at a war crimes tribunal depends on who are conducting the trials.