Hacker News Reader

Comment by austincheney | Hacker News Reader

This line of thinking does not apply to the US military. If you have reason to believe an order is illegal, or even should have known, you are just as guilty of the illegal act as the person giving an order. That being said don’t execute an illegal order hoping chain of command will qualify as a valid legal defense.

View on HN

-While I have no first-hand knowledge of the US military (or, for that matter, any military - I was conscripted into a branch which didn't take hierarchy too seriously), just about every time the subject of immoral/illegal orders came up, consensus was that the smart (for the individual) thing to do was to acknowledge the order, then do nothing.

The reasoning was that refusing an order would get you in serious trouble much faster than your claiming it was illegal would get you out of trouble - hence your best bet was to get hit with a (lesser) charge of incompetence rather than having the full weight of the army come crashing down on you for refusing.

Sounds like a case of corruption. Military systems can be corrupt for the same reason that humans can be corrupt. Unfortunately, nobody found the magic wand yet, so we still have to be responsible for ourselves and make difficult choices. Reform is hard work and a lot of people might not want to make the sacrifice (and understandably so).

Also, you swear your oath to defend the _constitution_, against all enemies foreign and _domestic_:

https://www.army.mil/values/oath.html

this comes _before_ the obligation to obey orders. Meaning that, at least in principle, a soldier is obligated to disobey unconstitutional commands, and in fact, to act to countermand them.

Of course that's not what armies are like in practice, but still.

I have mentioned this already folks. Nobody has the authority to break the law - not a general nor the president nor a judge nor a district attorney nor a member of parliament. A law remains the ultimate authority until it is voted out of practice.

Not having the authority, has little to do with the moral imperative to consider overriding circumstances.

We all have complete authority to make personal choices as we see fit.

What you call the moral imperative wasn't voted on, doesn't have a police to enforce it, doesn't have a judge to interpret it, doesn't have a media to debate it, and you just might happen to change your mind about it a couple of years into the future.

Even if you say that your strategy is to make people (including yourself) feel guilty about breaking this imperative, and amplify this feeling as much as possible so as to compensate for the lack of organization required for a proper law, it is not certain that that will ever work and I don't know of an example where it did work, although it has been tried over and over. And if I may say, it also corrupts human nature so even if it worked I won't be personally positive about it, but that is just me.

That's why its called 'morals'. The compass inside us, we use to decide what's right and wrong. Its the reason anybody does anything - including follow the law when it seems like the right thing to do.

That 2nd part - where did that fantasy come from? Not sure how to respond.

All disputes in a civil society must be resolved peacefully through elections and courts of law. Nobody can be above the law, for whatever reason. What you call morals is something that nobody voted on, nobody debated, no judge interpreted it, no police to enforce it.

Why should I be bound by your values but you can't be bound by my values? You are free to use your moral compass (and should) when voting, when debating, when campaigning, when serving, etc. But once a final vote has happened, the law is supreme and even those who voted it into practice cannot change their mind and decide to violate it, until the next vote happens.

Just imagine what it would be like to establish the "morality police". The first problem that arises is what should be considered moral and therefore needs to be enforced, and what should not be considered moral and therefore not enforced. And how do you decide that? Through voting, debate, a free press, separation of powers, etc.

Because, I'm already only 'bound' by my own values. As is every thinking person.

This is silly. Reiterating the same point (laws are important) isn't getting anywhere.

It is right that democracy cannot cast moral judgement on people who reject it. In this sense it is like a mathematical postulate -- you either accept it or reject it, and if you reject it then your proofs cannot be judged by that postulate.

But the people who value democracy can cast moral judgement, because while they are working to make the world a better place by sharpening points of view and rooting for the best one to win, you are just exploiting the system reaping all the rewards while not contributing anything.

Why the shortcut though, why not make your value a longer-lasting law?

And your neighbour thinks the same. And by the way they have a gun. In a civil society disagreements are solved peacefully through voting and clear structures of accountability so you don't need to guess if you are responsible or not.

Even the same person disagrees with themselves over time. People who vote this way this election, vote the other way the next one.

You devise me a system where people are above the law according to their own judgement at the particular moment they see fit, and still not have violence.

This is why you can fight your entire life for the reform you like to see happen, and still not get it. But 50 years of exchanging ballots is always better than 5 minutes of exchanging bullets.

All that strife, today, is prevented by morals and not laws. When it works anyway.

And the best one of those morals is the conviction to follow the law impartially.

I did mention that though but if you think it is stupid and/or immoral, the right thing to do is to still carry it out.

Why? What is meant by "right thing to do"?

All human beings are equal. There is no supreme arbiter of human argument. When you need to organize with fellow human beings, you then need to give people the benefit of a doubt after achieving certain qualifications to give orders according to their own arguments and views. On the other hand, when you achieve those qualifications, others will have to give you the benefit of a doubt to give orders according to your own arguments, views and values.

So you‘re saying every order ever given by any leader should have been followed, just because they were more „qualified“ than the people following.

I disagree. What if a leader got his qualifications but has since gone slightly insane? Qualification alone isn‘t reason enough to blindly follow orders.

In a democracy, and if the orders don't break any laws, then yes you follow the orders, and you are not considered responsible for the outcomes. If you can't do it, you resign or ask for someone else to do it. If you are still not satisfied you can go to a protest, go to the media and express your views, and exercise your vote in the next elections.

The problem of the leader that goes insane is solved with checks and balances.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com