So we have a standard soldier that's not very high on the chain of command. He gets a bit of a shocking order from on high that realistically he has to follow. But suddenly, everyone around him forgets that they're trained combat specialists and not the fucking pacifist league, and they all start going crazy over how "immoral" this order is.

But they are soldiers, for gods sale. These people are trained killers, and why have the skills if you don't want to use them? so, logically the soldier follows the order. Then, sometime later comes the anti-establishment self-aggrandizing "hero" who moralizes to you about what you did was "wrong".

So our soldier replies he was just following his orders. Somehow, this is seen as a BAD thing. He is told by our "hero" that the soldiers moral compass should've kicked in and disobeyed his superiors.

Then what the fuck is the point of a chain of command then? why bother answering to anyone in a military when you can disobey orders when it suits you? this is where a lot of fiction loses me, but mystifyingly enough, most people AGREE with this sentiment, that somehow disobeying a direct order from your superiors makes you a shining paragon of goodness, and NOT an insubordinate, unreliable person that disregards the ideals of others to force an overly idealistic mindset onto people actually using their brains and considering the long-term consequences of their actions.

Why do you guys think fiction approves of this self-righteous gung-ho crap, and constantly bashes the concept of a reliable authority figure?

First you have the Holocaust, then you have My-Lai. Those had an interesting effect going forward. Really, the twentieth century in general had a fascinating effect on how we perceive these things.

I wouldn't know how it is in other armies, but I do know that I am legally obliged to refuse, or failing that, outright disobey any orders that are unlawful or would result in an unlawful act. Following orders is good and all, but that doesn't mean that you can start switching off your brain. If my sergeant, lieutenant, or even lieutenant colonel came up to me and asked my straight to shoot someone, I'd ask them for a reason first.

I wouldn't know how it is in other armies, but I do know that I am legally obliged to refuse, or failing that, outright disobey any orders that are unlawful or would result in an unlawful act. Following orders is good and all, but that doesn't mean that you can start switching off your brain. If my sergeant, lieutenant, or even lieutenant colonel came up to me and asked my straight to shoot someone, I'd ask them for a reason first.

I get what you mean, and I'm not saying it's okay, but what about a situation where if you don't do the terrible thing, something even worse will happen? it's just that, sometimes you have to make a difficult choice and people don't seem to respect that. Sure, some things could've been avoided by simply not doing the terrible thing, but sometimes there's just no other option.

This has been pissing me off lately that people don't seem to accept that.

I dont know about the 'official' Army being only a Cadet myself but id assume that you have some sort of duty to disobey orders if they are A) a War crime B) Unlawful or C) Going against Conduct. I know from a friend of mine thats in the Austrian armed forces guard they have to alert a target that they will open fire if they dont stop what their doing. I'd assume that if an NCO or CO told you to do otherwise you dont do that as it goes against their code of conduct. I thought they would have some sort of rules after Vietnam anyways.

Edit: "and NOT an insubordinate, unreliable person that disregards the ideals of others to force an overly idealistic mindset onto people actually using their brains and considering the long-term consequences of their actions." You understand that if you shoot an Innocent man on a Lieutenants orders you both will go away for a long time for war crimes. The minute you switch into that mindset your no better than many of Historys most vilified leaders.

First you have the Holocaust, then you have My-Lai. Those had an interesting effect going forward. Really, the twentieth century in general had a fascinating effect on how we perceive these things.

There was some interesting research done on the psychology behind receiving and carrying out immoral orders. I'm sure as hell you heard of it, but the name of the experiments escapes me.

But striking My-Lai from the list because that was more of a case of American GIs being pissed as hell at the Vietcong and they found an unfortunate victim of their anger: I shall proceed.

The general take-away of the experiments was that people do put the blame on doing "bad" shit on it being "just orders". But the overlooked result was that more often than not people only really ever carried orders out to their fullest in this case when they're convinced it's for the greater good. The Nazi party understood this fully when they carried out the Holocaust.

As reports from soldiers involved and what not confirmed for the experiment's results, the Nazi hierarchy made appeals to the men's moral compass to make them think it was a good thing they were doing. As they were led to believe, the Holocaust was an inevitability and if they didn't do it then and now, then someone in the future would do it. And when they go and do it then things would be worse in the conditions under which it was done. For the Nazis the Holocaust was the best possible solution to the Jewish question and made off to be the most moral option when it came to the Jews. They were made to know and think this when they went off to man the camps.

Carrying on in the same period, the rape and destruction of the Germans by the Soviets could be seen as the same thing. It was a horrible act perpetrated by soldiers who may or may not have been given orders, or was just ignored by the higher ups who could have stopped it. But to the Russians they had a reason to do it. They wanted, needed revenge on the many, many Russians the Germans killed and the level of destruction wrought on the Soviet Union.

Lesson learned: you can give immoral orders and get them carried out when there's a fundamental reason to do so that negates the immorality. IF you don't do X then Y will happen, we have to do X because Y happened, or X will lead to a better result than Y.

I am on the phone right now so can't easily look it up, but I think the Stanford Prison Experiment is the one you mean

I am on the phone right now so can't easily look it up, but I think the Stanford Prison Experiment is the one you mean

It might have been but right now I can't be assed to check myself either.

But I swear the Stanford one was proof that people with supreme power over others are likely to abuse their power no matter their background. But I might be thinking of the mock prison experiment too.

Oh fuck no, you're talking about the electric zap one.

There are different concepts of what a soldier ought to be.

For large swathes of history, a 'soldier' was essentially meant to be a slave. Often they were taken straight from the dungeons (or the gallows), or the poorhouses, or pressed into service from a captured ship, or whatever other shit situation, and the contract entered was 'you will do whatever we say and we'll feed you and clothe you until those orders result in your death -- or we could just kill you now.'

These soldiers performed adequately. They reflected a commander's competency, because they were neither encouraged nor ALLOWED to deviate from that commander's orders. So as long as you had a good general who maintained proper discipline, your army was set.

What we've realized -- and why we've moved away from the draft -- is that there's a better soldier out there -- the one who is highly trained and exceedingly competent, and capable of forming and acting upon his own initiative. Ten of these soldiers can do the work of hundreds of drones -- and yes, they have more technology, but so do the enemies, and besides this is a soldier you can *trust* with an Abrams tank, and if an opportunity arises in which that asset can give an advantage, the soldier is prepared to act.

Now to maintain order in an army of drones, you have to occasionally flog the malcontents and keelhaul a few traitors. British sergeants used to march behind their units with a pike to remind everyone that if they disobeyed or fled, he could cut them down. Russians mounted machine guns behind their advancing lines and opened fire if the conscripts retreated. These were necessary precautions, but inefficient -- you wasted all that food and supply on soldiers you wound up killing later, and your best, most trustworthy men aren't out there fighting -- they're holding the pike, or manning the machine gun aimed at your own soldiers. Huge waste of money and talent. Our modern soldiers not only perform better on the field, they do so without the inefficiency. And the only price is, you must command them in such a way that does not assault their sense of honor. If you do that, your proud soldiers will fight harder, better, and cheaper.

Without even approaching the moral argument, it all makes sense, right? Now throw in the moral high ground, and the strategic advantages gained from the moral high ground. It's no contest.