This might get a lot of down votes but I want to say I don’t think it’s fair to blame the soldiers in the field for the choices of the decision makers in the office. Those horrible events were unwanted ‘byproducts’ of the goal of men with evil plans, they were not veterans going off-book. In other words, these veterans did what was asked of them. I’m not saying they didn’t do some very bad things, but they aren’t the people that should be ‘thanked’.
You are literally arguing the same as all Nazis did. “I was just following orders”. US military decided to join an organisation that constantly attacks other countries.
This was exactly the take I was looking for. “I was just following orders” is, and has always been, a bad take. Grow a pair and accept the consequences of your poor decision making.
Superior orders, also known as just following orders or the Nuremberg defense, is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether civilian, military or police, should not be considered guilty of committing crimes ordered by a superior officer or official.[1][2] It is regarded as a complement to command responsibility.[3]
I’m saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers on the choices of their leaders, I’m not saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers for their own choice. I totally agree they could’ve chosen to not to follow orders. I’m not saying they are innocent. But their role is not comparable to the role of the people giving orders.
Nuance matters. You think a 18 year old boy that was brainwashed into nationalisl his entire life should be executed for being forced to serve as a cook in the military? The Nazis used conscription while the US uses economic coercion (gate keeping jobs, healthcare, and college for vets)
I didn’t get the feeling this is what the meme is about, maybe it is. I think your discomfort is good, in that it has you questioning what you may have not questioned, before. On one level, we can’t decide what’s okay for you, internally. The bigger question is, if external forces would compel suffering and death for your beliefs and convictions, are you prepared to accept that? Many of us who think we are may not be, when put into that position, just as many of us who think we aren’t may end up being more certain than we knew. And at that end neither really matters, at all. I think deep introspection will have to be both journey and destination, multiple times in our lifetimes. The questioning is the reward.
In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.
Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is:
Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:
Criminal Guilt:
Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.
Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.
Political Guilt:
Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.
Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.
Moral Guilt:
Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.
Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.
Metaphysical Guilt:
Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.
Instance: God or transcendence.
Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.
Yes. I wonder what the outcomes of centering the soldiers gult is?
Do we want the solution to be that soldiers have to consider every order given within the historical context of the time to decide the morally correct actions and do them even if it means court martial or death?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay for soldiers to do this in extreme examples. But I don’t think this should be the norm.
I think we should shift the focus to the leaders instead of the soldiers. They are better positioned to make these decisions and have the time to do so.
Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.
From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.
They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.
Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.
Thanks, for your summary. I think he’s right about different kinds of guilt being judged in different ways. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean that person will never feel the guilt. It sounds like a good read.
The idea is to consistently work toward being better than yesterday and making restitution, where possible, not where comfortable. It’s not always going to be easy. It’s called character development. If we’ve worked hard for a number of years being of bad character, it’s generally going to take an equal or greater number of years of hard work and restitution to be of great character; but with diligence, I would say perhaps the number of exceptions would be greater than the general rule. It doesn’t mean there will actually be external validation of it, though.
Lol. I feel that to the core. We all do and all are. And I certainly did try to escape too. I think the main thing is doing our best to minimize any harm and maximize any service to our fellow living beings, understanding that everything is a living being.
Thank you. 18 year old kids who were never given a sufficient education in history, civics, political science, and basic morality can’t be blamed for working as a cook, secretary, nurse, electrician, intel analyst, etc in the military so that they can afford college.
Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.
It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.
I’m not going to go refind the examples, but there have been stories about things soldiers do that are definitely not ordered by anyone else. There can be a level of cruelty at times that is completely on the individual and they cannot always hide behind “I was told to”.
O i totally agree, this is exactly why i started with ‘this is might get a lot of downvotes’. But the crimes on the pictures where not crimes by individual soldiers. These things were done by individuals who were told to. I’m not saying that makes them innocent, I’m saying they weren’t the most guilty. The most guilty in my opinion are the men who scheme and think up of plans like this, and then order others to execute it.
Abu Ghraib was done by individual soldiers. At least as far as we know, they were not explicitly ordered to do all the things that they did, and when it came to light, several were charged with crimes over it. Furthermore, not a single person at the base blew the whistle on it, it was only because of independent journalists that it came to light.
If we cite war crimes carried out on the initiative of ordinary soldiers, then of course you could claim that it was just those individual soldiers who were responsible. If we cite things that were carried out on a systematic level, then you’ll say it was the leaders who were responsible, not the soldiers. So I have to ask, is there anything that could, theoretically happen that would make it ok to say, “fuck the troops?” What would that have to look like?
If someone did a horrific thing and then told me they weren’t as guilty as their boss I’d be fairly confident saying that if their first priority was to justify their actions then they can also get absolutely fucked.
But not every soldiers’ first priority are justifying their actions. Please note that the title of this post is insinuating that all veterans are to blame, not some or even the majority of them. Also note the title omits the bosses, the people who gave the orders.That is why I replied. We would only disagree if you’d believe the boss isn’t guilty because he didn’t do the execution of his plans.
This might get a lot of down votes but I want to say I don’t think it’s fair to blame the soldiers in the field for the choices of the decision makers in the office. Those horrible events were unwanted ‘byproducts’ of the goal of men with evil plans, they were not veterans going off-book. In other words, these veterans did what was asked of them. I’m not saying they didn’t do some very bad things, but they aren’t the people that should be ‘thanked’.
You are literally arguing the same as all Nazis did. “I was just following orders”. US military decided to join an organisation that constantly attacks other countries.
This was exactly the take I was looking for. “I was just following orders” is, and has always been, a bad take. Grow a pair and accept the consequences of your poor decision making.
Ahh, yes, the mindless drone argument.
Ah, the Nuremberg defense. 😶
No that would be saying they didn’t do anything bad because doing what is asked of you is always good.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
I’m saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers on the choices of their leaders, I’m not saying we shouldn’t blame the soldiers for their own choice. I totally agree they could’ve chosen to not to follow orders. I’m not saying they are innocent. But their role is not comparable to the role of the people giving orders.
Nuance matters. You think a 18 year old boy that was brainwashed into nationalisl his entire life should be executed for being forced to serve as a cook in the military? The Nazis used conscription while the US uses economic coercion (gate keeping jobs, healthcare, and college for vets)
Sorry, which user was it exactly who said, “Kill every troop?”
I didn’t get the feeling this is what the meme is about, maybe it is. I think your discomfort is good, in that it has you questioning what you may have not questioned, before. On one level, we can’t decide what’s okay for you, internally. The bigger question is, if external forces would compel suffering and death for your beliefs and convictions, are you prepared to accept that? Many of us who think we are may not be, when put into that position, just as many of us who think we aren’t may end up being more certain than we knew. And at that end neither really matters, at all. I think deep introspection will have to be both journey and destination, multiple times in our lifetimes. The questioning is the reward.
I would much rather see a concerted effort to like not do wars, instead of this overtly obvious attempt to stir the pot.
In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.
Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is: Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:
Criminal Guilt:
Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.
Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.
Political Guilt:
Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.
Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.
Moral Guilt:
Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.
Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.
Metaphysical Guilt:
Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.
Instance: God or transcendence.
Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.
Yes. I wonder what the outcomes of centering the soldiers gult is?
Do we want the solution to be that soldiers have to consider every order given within the historical context of the time to decide the morally correct actions and do them even if it means court martial or death?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay for soldiers to do this in extreme examples. But I don’t think this should be the norm.
I think we should shift the focus to the leaders instead of the soldiers. They are better positioned to make these decisions and have the time to do so.
And it’s their job.
Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.
From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.
They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.
Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.
Thanks, for your summary. I think he’s right about different kinds of guilt being judged in different ways. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean that person will never feel the guilt. It sounds like a good read.
It’s basically impossible not to be a PoS. Wish I was just not born now.
The idea is to consistently work toward being better than yesterday and making restitution, where possible, not where comfortable. It’s not always going to be easy. It’s called character development. If we’ve worked hard for a number of years being of bad character, it’s generally going to take an equal or greater number of years of hard work and restitution to be of great character; but with diligence, I would say perhaps the number of exceptions would be greater than the general rule. It doesn’t mean there will actually be external validation of it, though.
That’s the thing. I will always owe something, and I’m always guilty of something just because I am alive.
I actually was so bothered by this, that I spent years trying to develop a system to get around it.
Lol. I feel that to the core. We all do and all are. And I certainly did try to escape too. I think the main thing is doing our best to minimize any harm and maximize any service to our fellow living beings, understanding that everything is a living being.
Thank you. 18 year old kids who were never given a sufficient education in history, civics, political science, and basic morality can’t be blamed for working as a cook, secretary, nurse, electrician, intel analyst, etc in the military so that they can afford college.
Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.
It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.
Never heard of this, thanks
I’m not going to go refind the examples, but there have been stories about things soldiers do that are definitely not ordered by anyone else. There can be a level of cruelty at times that is completely on the individual and they cannot always hide behind “I was told to”.
O i totally agree, this is exactly why i started with ‘this is might get a lot of downvotes’. But the crimes on the pictures where not crimes by individual soldiers. These things were done by individuals who were told to. I’m not saying that makes them innocent, I’m saying they weren’t the most guilty. The most guilty in my opinion are the men who scheme and think up of plans like this, and then order others to execute it.
Abu Ghraib was done by individual soldiers. At least as far as we know, they were not explicitly ordered to do all the things that they did, and when it came to light, several were charged with crimes over it. Furthermore, not a single person at the base blew the whistle on it, it was only because of independent journalists that it came to light.
If we cite war crimes carried out on the initiative of ordinary soldiers, then of course you could claim that it was just those individual soldiers who were responsible. If we cite things that were carried out on a systematic level, then you’ll say it was the leaders who were responsible, not the soldiers. So I have to ask, is there anything that could, theoretically happen that would make it ok to say, “fuck the troops?” What would that have to look like?
If someone did a horrific thing and then told me they weren’t as guilty as their boss I’d be fairly confident saying that if their first priority was to justify their actions then they can also get absolutely fucked.
But not every soldiers’ first priority are justifying their actions. Please note that the title of this post is insinuating that all veterans are to blame, not some or even the majority of them. Also note the title omits the bosses, the people who gave the orders.That is why I replied. We would only disagree if you’d believe the boss isn’t guilty because he didn’t do the execution of his plans.
They could just have not.