No, you’ve been called a coward for being unwilling to risk yourself for anyone or anything. You’ve been called a fascist for insisting that blind obedience is the best way to act with regards to authority. And you’ve been called an idiot for failing to recognize that this blind obedience has a terrible history and has been vital for genocides and similar atrocities, while being unnecessary for any positive things in human history.
And yet we still have laws and treaties prohibiting them. The fact that there exist no fundamental human rights doesn’t mean that we can’t create them and enforce them through law.
None, with the exception of the final case, which occurred after Pakistan joined the UN.
You say coward; I say realist. There is nothing in the universe that is worth a human life and the world would be a much better place if more people understood that. (I already know someone is going to say this “contradicts” my hawkishness and pro-death penalty stance; it doesn’t. We shouldn’t have to execute people, but we do; and the solution to that problem is to stop people from wanting to do the things that make us need to kill them.)
I have not advocated “blind” obedience to anything. That’s you all putting words in my mouth.
I will note that nobody has addressed my point that the Nazis would never have come to power, nor committed the Holocaust, if they had obeyed the law.
I will also note that no battle in history has ever been won where the privates responded to an order of “COMMENCE FIRING!” by attempting to debate just war theory with the sarge.
How about other human lives? Would you risk your life for your children?
The obedience you’ve described can fairly be described as blind obedience. And this isn’t the first time your philosophy has been called “blind obedience”… you only now seem to be taking issue with it. If you do not support blind obedience, then when is it appropriate to question the order or demand from an authority figure?
Whether true or not, this is irrelevant, since there will always be people who break the rules. Further, sometimes the rules are not clear, or are bad rules. The important thing to note is that they would not have been able to commit the Holocaust once in power if the German people and soldiers had resisted these orders.
Such an order is usually lawful and just. But not always – on more than one occasion, the order to fire was given, and someone recognized that (for example) the target was friendly. On those occasions, questioning the order helped win the war. Further, there are many, many other orders that might be given that should be questioned – and not just to save innocents. I was part of the crew of a US submarine during an at-sea collision – and the officer in charge at the time did not recognize this threat until it was too late. Some junior personnel did recognize the threat but did not contradict their superior – if they had, we might have avoided the collision.
Disciplined but independent-minded armies, with soldiers who feel empowered to challenge their superior’s when necessary but follow lawful orders instantly, virtually always defeat armies who are trained to never question their orders.
Except if the government is coming around to round them up and execute them, in which case you feel that it is your duty to turn them in.
Dude, you should probably stop trying to defend yourself here, take a step back and seriously consider who you really are.
If we lived in a world with perfect rules and perfect people who could and would always follow them, then we should follow them. But the fact remains unquestionable that we don’t live in a perfect society, and as a responsible member of society we should be making an effort to improve it. We may never be able to achieve perfection, but maybe we can get close to it.
This is why it’s important to teach our children to question the rules, not to follow them. Because unless one is willing to assert that we have perfect rules, then we’re bound to come across imperfect ones, and if we’re not ready and willing to question them when they arise and take action to make those rules better, then we’re stuck where we are. Worse, unless one is willing to assert that our society is made of perfect people, those who are willing to question the rules toward a more nefarious purpose could even change them for the worse.
In fact, I would take this a step farther, and I would argue that, in general rules are only really meaningful if they don’t need to be followed. That is, when the rules are congruent with the manner in which one should reasonably conduct his life without a government to make him do it. For example, the reason that I don’t murder, assault, and steal isn’t because the government has made laws against those acts. In fact, in a world like the one posited in The Purge films where the government would even sanction these acts under certain circumstances, I wouldn’t do them. The reason I don’t is because they are against my own moral code. Overwhelmingly, people recongize that these behaviors and similar ones are immoral and destructive to the cohesion of society, though not everyone always follows through, and this is why we need government, to protect those who willingly will follow the basic rules needed to make society function from those who need varying degrees of coercion to do so.
And this is where our rights come from. Ideas like the right to life and property aren’t necessarily God-given in the sense that a deity said they are so, but they are emergent properties that arise from successful societies. For instance, a society that doesn’t respect the right to life of it’s people probably will have issues with maintaining it’s population. If my neighbor and I agree to respect eachother’s property, I can spend less time and energy protecting my property and more putting it to good use. In this sense, government doesn’t grant rights, it simply recognizes that these rights make for a healthier society.
And this is how we’ve grown as a society. The government didn’t suddenly grant rights to various races, or women, or orientations or whatever. Rather, society came to a point where we realized that society as a whole is stronger and better when blacks and women and gays have these rights recognized and protected. But the only way that we can start to come to a point where we can realize that rights are worth recognizing and protecting is by questioning the structures we’ve built. If no one ever questioned the rules, America would still be a society ruled by the elist, rich, white, land-holding, slave owners, and you made it clear a few posts upthread that you think that wasn’t good.
No.
When the order is not of an immediately urgent nature, it can be appropriate to request clarification, bring information to the superior’s attention of which they may not be aware, ask that the order be rescinded, or appeal to someone of greater authority.
If those avenues have been exhausted and the order stands, then it must be followed.
It may be my duty. That doesn’t mean I’d enjoy doing it.
I am who I am. I am incapable of being anyone else.
I agree, but believing that the rules are wrong and working peacefully and lawfully to change them doesn’t excuse you from having to follow them until they are changed.
It doesn’t matter if you’d enjoy it – if you’d do it, then you are taking part in a great evil. If you’d truly act this way, then you are a danger and a detriment to society.
IIRC, you’ve stated that your views changed significantly.
If they came to execute you, would you turn yourself in?
Then the title ‘coward’ is perfectly applicable to you. Does your family know that you would not risk yourself to save them?
This is a very poor standard, and “blind obedience” and “fascist” still fit, because you’d obey an order like “tell us who in this building is Jewish”. Your standard would do nothing to stand in the way of genocide and other atrocities for those in power and make such actions much easier. This standard is terrible for human life and human society, with a terrible record for life and society.
Thus the “idiot” accusation.
I would probably try to run and get executed anyway.
Depending on the severity of the rules, yes it does. We are not robots or automatons. We are thinking, reasoning human beings who are capable of identifying those situations where the rules defied become rules replaced. And if an individual person is wrong, society will deal with that too.
To give up our ability to think for ourselves negates our humanity. We should challenge ourselves to think carefully if we choose to go against the rules, but at the end of the day, if what needs to be done to fight an injustice, then so be it.
I don’t live in a world of insane hypotheticals where your loved ones are constantly in danger and the secret police for some reason need to recruit random civilians to help them identify Jews, so I can’t say the topic has come up in conversation.
And how would my being shot and killed for refusing to cooperate stand in the way of genocide or prevent them from asking someone else?
Going against the rules is the definition of injustice.
People are in danger all the time. It’s very possible that someone in your family might fall into a river someday, and you’ve stated you would not risk your life to save them. I weep for your family, but I hope they learn the extent of your cowardice so they know they can’t rely on you in a dangerous situation.
You might deceive them, delay them, or even join the resistance and overthrow them.
Well, then, you’ve contradicted the complaint that started this whole thread. We have created, thought invocation of the laws of mathematics, an effective right to privacy. Mission accomplished, the “U CANT DOO THAT” whinging of a few bureaucrats and guys on the Internet notwithstanding.
Pity. If you could at least work up the gumption to follow your professed beliefs to the end, you might go out with some respect.
You can’t be arrested for breaking the laws of mathematics.
What does it benefit the world, society, or myself if, instead of one person drowning in the river, two people drown in the river?
Any of which would increase my risk of sharing the fate of the people they’re hunting, which is not acceptable.