Otherwise known as the Nuremberg Defense.

The idea that someone can claim various forms of “orders” as a moral defense has always troubled me. It seems to abdicate the individual responsibility that must accompany the rights and freedoms of an individualistic society. The thought that we have this category of individual action that does not fully partake of this individual responsibility goes against the grain of everything we believe.

Especially for me. Readers of this blog know that I have no inherent respect for authority. In a sense, authority qua authority does not exist for me. Doing what I am told simply because someone told me to do it is foreign to me.

Luckily, I also have no inherent problem with authority. For me, authority is always judged on a case by case basis, with room left for belief in one authority more than another because of either superior qualifications or a demonstrated pattern of worthiness of authority by being fair, decent, objective, compassionate, and wise.

But no matter how much I trust an authority, I am not going to do something objectively wrong simply because someone told me to do it. Not without them being able to justify the action to me, and it had better be good. For better and for worse, I retain autonomy no matter what, and so I can’t imagine doing something which deeply violates my (perhaps overweening) sense of what is right and what is wrong.

To me, it almost seems absurd.

“Shoot that man!”
“Um, no, I don’t think so. ”
“I gave you an order, mister!”
“Yes, I know. I was there. ”
“I SAID KILL THAT MAN!”
“I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME. ”
“Then why aren’t you following orders?”
“Because I don’t want to. Also, because I don’t believe that certain words have the magic ability to make bad things good. Killing that unarmed man would be evil no matter how loud you shout. Look, you have a gun. Why don’t you shoot him yourself?”
“BECAUSE I’M ORDERING YOU TO DO IT!”
“What, you mean you are far too busy shouting and getting red in the face to do it yourself? The solution to that seems obvious. Calm yourself down. ”
“I’m going to say this ONE MORE TIME… ”
“Oh good, then I won’t have to hear it again. ”
“SHOOT THAT MAN. ”
“Would it surprise you to know that my opinion hasn’t changed? I bet it would, even though it shouldn’t. I don’t know what sort of voodoo powers you think you have,, but they don’t work on me. ”

And so forth and so on.

But that’s just me. I have an independence of mind and thought that is extremely rare in human beings, and while I view it as an asset, it comes from a place of pain and isolation that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

Most people have the authority circuit installed at least to some extent. I first noticed this when I entered school. Even at only six years old, I intuitively grasped that the other kids were afraid of the teacher and did what they were told automatically. I had no fear of the teachers and did what I was told after thinking about it.

So what I wrestle with in the case of the Nuremberg Defense is the fact that while I recognize that most people have at least some sense of authority, I can’t empathize. Not entirely. I can imagine doing what you are told out of self-interest, but I can’t imagine doing it just because you are told to do it.

I honestly don’t know what that feels like.

What brought this subject up was a scene in something I was watching where all the crime boss has to do is to nod at one of his thugs,and said thug very viciously murders someone. Stab, stab, stab. Just like that.

I don’t get it. Does that thug feel like he is not a murderer because he was just following orders? It wasn’t his idea to kill the guy so it’s not really his fault? And does the crime boss feel like he isn’t a murderer either because he didn’t actually do the killing himself? Is that how these things work?

My gut instinct would be to judge the thug with the knife exactly as if nobody has said anything to him and he had just decided, out of the blue, to kill a guy. I must admit, I would enjoy watching him try the Nuremberg defense and have it fall absolutely flat with me. There are no magic words, and so on.

As for the crime boss, I would judge him exactly the same. There, instead of splitting the guilt, you doubled it.

But I recognize that such a judgment would be unfair. A solid case can be made that some people might be literally incapable of defying their orders. Certainly military and paramilitary (like the cops) organizations spend a great deal of time teaching their soldiers to act without thinking and obey without questioning. Such brainwashing has to enter the moral equation somehow.

But more importantly, the fact that I can’t empathize with the order-following emotion does not mean it doesn’t exist or that it does not count. I would never go so far as to say that I am willing to accept the Nuremberg Defense without qualification, and I would still hold the actual perpetrator primarily responsible for the crime.

But were I a judge, I would be willing to take orders into account as mitigating circumstances, especially when it comes to sentencing. Not everyone has the wit, the will,and the total social maladjustment to be as autonomous as I am, and for some people, doing what they are told is about the best that they can do.

As usual, sanity lies somewhere in between.

What do you think, gentle reader? Do you accept the Nuremberg Defense? Or do you think it’s bullshit? Just how much does it matter whether someone was following orders?

Please answer in the comments.

I will talk to you nice people again tomorrow.