Originally by: Elora Danzik

---

Originally by: Jacob Mei

---

My question is this, if over 50% of individuals will ultimately kill another human, if admitedly with visable signs of reservations how can we as a society properly deal with individuals who commit these sorts of acts at the request of their authority figure? Is the responsability on the person "pulling the trigger" or on the person telling them to pull the trigger? Do you judge both individuals to be guilty or does it varry on a case by case basis depending on what was done to the victim? Do the political times have anything to do with how one would judge to be the guilty party?

---

A solider is given an order to shoot a person. He does. Later, said action is determined to be a "war crime" (which is a misnomer). The soilder's only defence is that he was "following orders". I am not an expert, but I believe the Military Code of Justice would punish both the soilder who pulled the trigger and the soilder who gave the order.

In every case, where authority figures are involved there is implyed punishment. The simple act of saying this person is in charge, implicates that. Ideally, the person in charge would have the ethics to know when to stop. However, in the case of the zealot there would be no restraint.

So the person with his hand on the button has a choice. Defy authority and face the implied punishment, or follow orders and avoid the percieved punishment.


It like the story of the Arabic general who took british prisoners. He offered them a choice. Death or they could take what was on the other side of the door. Every prisoner choose death. We if they chose the door, they had their freedom.

The punishment is implied. We don't know what the authority figure might do. We could be on the other side of the electordes next time. However, if we follow orders and take the known path (death) there is no ambuigity.

All is chosen.

---