Today's ethical dilemma: the guilt of authority

I thought of this from another thread, and it's an ethical situation I've been wondering about for some time.

I've also been thinking for a number of months that what the Lounge needs is an ethical question to hash around and discuss once a week, so I think, if I can remember and get my shit together, to offer one of these every Friday for our amusement AND for our edification.

Here's the question: Given a situation in which one person orders another person to do something unethical (such as murder, theft, committing a war crime, beating up or killing a rival gang member, cooking the accounting books, etc.), and assuming that they both know the act is unethical, who bears more guilt - the one who ordered it, but didn't actually *do* anything; or the one who followed the order and committed the crime? Or are they equally guilty?

This was certainly one of the big questions at Nurnberg, and also one of the reasons that we now expect soldiers to disobey any order that violates law.

I am tending at this point to consider that the one who gave the order bears more guilt than the one who did it, though the one who did it is also not free from guilt. I think of it this way: the one who gave the order is in a position of power, and so has abused his/her position of authority AND, in my opinion, by giving the order and seeing it carried out is also as guilty of committing the act as the one who did it. The one who did the act is guilty only of committing it - and while we can hold that person resposnible for not refusing to carry out the order, we can also understand that that person might very well be forfeiting their life or livelihood or even putting their family into danger by not complying.

What say you, O Loungers?

If they both know it's unethical and against the law, then both are equally guilty.

Whomever has more to lose is somewhat less guilty.

however, no one can "make" you do anything even under threat of death. Someone was going to get hurt why bring other people into it, I'd just say no and hope I was faster on the draw than him.


It truly depends on the crime but the one who knew better and did it anyway is a coward. The one who knew it was wrong and ordered it anyway is an evil criminal.

Let the jury trial begin.

makes a difference. I mean, if someone were to order me to beat a prisoner or something, I would refuse...but I would have a much harder time refusing if someone held a gun to my head and ordered me to do it or die.

If the person doing the ordering and the person doing the actual deed both act basically without being coerced, then it's different. I dunno. People certainly seem to hold Charles Manson accountable to a greater degree than the actual killers in that case....

which would always require me to question and challenge if not fight and destroy the person who presumes to give me orders.

So their guilt is about equal, with maybe a little more guilt on the side of the person holding the gun and not turning it around on his officer. However, the way bureaucracies work, the commander is inevitably responsible in more of these situations than the commanded, and so is ultimately more culpable.

however, where it is the case both are found knowing, the split would trend 50/50; though where it is the case that the ask-or has foisted upon the ask-ee a knowingly unethical task seeking advantage over a circumstance, or disadvantaged condition i.e. family distress; need for continued work, blackmail etc...the split may be seen as widening, and that may not be merely imo

Doesn't matter how you do it--at the point of a gun or with love--the only authority you ever have is what you are given (or ceded.)

While I agree that there is a huge culpability in asking someone to do something immoral/ illegal/ unethical, I also feel that the person actually DOING the crime is guilty as well. Ultimately, it is their hand that does the act and that confers a higher level of responsibility.

This is an interesting look at Situational Ethics. Glad to see it here!


Laura

Good food for thought so far.

"Cooking the Books." :eyes:

depending on the circumstance, of course.

The person who actually did the crime bears some responsibility, but if they are coerced or threatened or foresee dire consequences if they do not go along with the criminal action, the authority is ultimately responsible.

In US courts of law, signing under duress can negate contracts and such, and should negate full guilt in a criminal matter as well.

It's always easy to answer these things from hindsight or distance but it seems to me that the person who is abusing his/her authority is more culpable than the one following the orders. Which is not to say they don't carry responsibility as well - they do.

I always remember the study cited in a college psychology class I took. Done shortly after WWII, they put college students in a room with a person of authority and told them they were doing an experiment using electrical shock. They had another student in an adjoining room with a window looking into it - that student was hooked up to electrodes. The "doctor" would instruct the first student to turn dials, which would cause the other student to be shocked - that student was faking; the electrodes weren't real and the point was to see how far these kids would go before they objected. Most of them went quite far and some of them would object but when told that it was okay would continue even though it seemed the other person was in excruciating pain.

Even though all these people had to be acutely aware of what had JUST happened in Germany, they pretty much unquestioningly did as they were told. People look for leadership and for someone to tell them what to do and they tend to automatically defer to someone in authority. That's not necessarily right but it seems to be human nature and some people take full advantage of that. I think those people are truly malicious and bear more guilt.

You have to consider, too, that there has to come a point where the actual perpetrator realizes how serious all this is. Usually it seems they figure they're already in too deep. If they stop, they risk censure and possible punishment from authority and if they continue, they risk their soul. Unfortunately, most people seem to worry more about the immediate threat, rather than the right or wrong at that point. So they are certainly culpable as well because they fail to take a stand upon that realization. I think that makes them more weak than evil. Which, once again, isn't an excuse.

I'd say about 60/40.

In thinking about terms of jobs and employment though, there is sometimes different standards. If a person gets hurt on the job while carrying out orders, the company is usually considered responsible even if the person knew that the particuliar thing that they were doing might cause them to get hurt. If a person breaks the law in certain ways while carrying out orders on the job, they are often criminally responsible. In both cases, the employee may have faced termination of employment or other penalties.