3 ms·

> but them being punished by the system they worked for is bullshit. It's not bullshit, it's comeuppance. This is what happens when you just follow orders. The

> but them being punished by the system they worked for is bullshit. It's not bullshit, it's comeuppance. This is what happens when you just follow orders. The punishment fits the crime.

Nextgrid 7y ago
“Following orders” should IMO be graded against the surveillance capabilities of the state. Disobeying orders on moral grounds was way easier before, but nowadays the people “following orders” are subject to the same surveillance as everyone else so dissent and disobedience is harder and can be squashed easily.
derefr 7y ago
So, in your opinion, being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head would make you guilty of a crime? Most systems of law disagree. There is a large difference between "orders" that disobedience to results in being fired, or a dishonorable discharge from a military; and "orders" that disobedience to results in being disappeared. The latter is plain-and-simple coercion, no different than being held hostage and being told to do something by your hostage-taker.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head no such thing. > There was a widespread conviction that it is impossible to withstand temptation of any kind, that none of us could be trusted or even be expected to betrustworthy when the chips are down, that to be tempted and to be forced are almost the same, whereas in the words of Mary McCarthy, who first spotted this fallacy: "If somebody points a gun at you and says,'Kill your friend or I will kill you,' he is tempting you, that is all." And while a temptation where one's life is at stake may be a legal excuse for a crime, it certainly is not a moral justification. -- Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"
- lostmsu 7y ago
  But there is no gun to their head. Even in China refusing to comply with an order will not give you a death sentence. Also, being allowed by law does not make stuff automatically justified.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > So, in your opinion, being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head would make you guilty of a crime? Most systems of law disagree. I'm not so sure about this. There are many legal and law-like systems that would agree you've done something wrong by committing the murder, even if you had a good reason. I'd expect more agreement as to the idea that punishment should be light than that your behavior wasn't wrong in the first place.
simonh 7y ago
I'm not saying they are blameless, or should face no consequences. I tried to make that clear. I'm saying that the system that made them do what they did punishing them for doing it, and then carrying on the same way training and incentivising others to do the same all over again, is not justice. It is a sham facade of justice being used as a distraction from the real injustices of the system.

> but them being punished by the system they worked for is bullshit. It's not bullshit, it's comeuppance. This is what happens when you just follow orders. The punishment fits the crime.

Nextgrid 7y ago

“Following orders” should IMO be graded against the surveillance capabilities of the state. Disobeying orders on moral grounds was way easier before, but nowadays the people “following orders” are subject to the same surveillance as everyone else so dissent and disobedience is harder and can be squashed easily.

derefr 7y ago

So, in your opinion, being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head would make you guilty of a crime? Most systems of law disagree. There is a large difference between "orders" that disobedience to results in being fired, or a dishonorable discharge from a military; and "orders" that disobedience to results in being disappeared. The latter is plain-and-simple coercion, no different than being held hostage and being told to do something by your hostage-taker.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head no such thing. > There was a widespread conviction that it is impossible to withstand temptation of any kind, that none of us could be trusted or even be expected to betrustworthy when the chips are down, that to be tempted and to be forced are almost the same, whereas in the words of Mary McCarthy, who first spotted this fallacy: "If somebody points a gun at you and says,'Kill your friend or I will kill you,' he is tempting you, that is all." And while a temptation where one's life is at stake may be a legal excuse for a crime, it certainly is not a moral justification. -- Hannah Arendt, "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship"
lostmsu 7y ago
But there is no gun to their head. Even in China refusing to comply with an order will not give you a death sentence. Also, being allowed by law does not make stuff automatically justified.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> So, in your opinion, being coerced to kill someone with a gun to your own head would make you guilty of a crime? Most systems of law disagree. I'm not so sure about this. There are many legal and law-like systems that would agree you've done something wrong by committing the murder, even if you had a good reason. I'd expect more agreement as to the idea that punishment should be light than that your behavior wasn't wrong in the first place.

simonh 7y ago

I'm not saying they are blameless, or should face no consequences. I tried to make that clear. I'm saying that the system that made them do what they did punishing them for doing it, and then carrying on the same way training and incentivising others to do the same all over again, is not justice. It is a sham facade of justice being used as a distraction from the real injustices of the system.