In this posting, I intend to discuss how "just following orders" is not as lame an excuse as many seem to think it is, but how, nevertheless, we cannot accept it as a valid excuse, and attempt to look at how we should handle such cases.

For those not familiar with the famous Milgram experiment, you owe it to yourself to look into it. It demonstrated that most Americans were willing to follow orders beyond a point that basic human decency would seem to preclude. A surprising 65 percent of participants showed no limits to how far they would go while following orders, while only 2.5 percent (i.e., 1 out of the 40 participants) refused to administer a shock that was marked as being dangerous. If you think we've evolved much, check out this episode of "What would you do?"

So, given that most of us would follow orders beyond what we find decent, how can we be too harsh on those who are given such orders and then follow them? Well, for starters, accepting such an excuse makes it even less likely that people would question such orders in the future, whereas making examples of those who did not question such orders makes it more likely people will question such orders in the future. But, is that fair? I think not.

So, what should we do? Here's where I feel murky, so bear with me. For one thing, I think making as many people aware of the Milgram experiment as possible as a form of inoculation is a beginning. Of course, it has to be done in the right context so as not to be seen as excusing such behavior. Secondly, I think we can follow the German example somewhat where great collective shame is heaped onto our heads for allowing it.

What else can we do? How much should we worry about fairness if it prevents future atrocities?

Cross-posted at dagblog.