‘I was just following orders’ has come to be known as the ‘Nuremberg Defense’ or ‘Superior Orders’. It was used as a legal defence by the Nazis to attempt to shift or reduce their culpability for the heinous acts they committed. The Nuremberg Defense principle suggested diminished responsibility for harm caused as the accused were only obeying orders. The prerogative of obeying orders, the logic goes, sweeps aside individual moral and ethical choice irrespective of the act and the suffering it caused.
The excuse of ‘I was following orders’ is frequently used to maintain status quo. This path of least resistance ensures attention is not drawn to oneself for fear of chastisement and retribution or because one profits from it. The logic of Nuremberg Defense persists, even if on a smaller scale, today. The modern versions of this argument exude a similar abandonment of personal morality and are bandied about in private and public for personal and collective actions. On each occasion, it points to the abdication of personal moral responsibility. In each instance, the end — that is the absolution of personal responsibility— is meant to justify a morally dubious means.
Many choose to be complicit because they assume it provides them safety. For others, the choices are based on commitments to narrow beliefs as well as assessments of what benefits them the most. However, the story of Pastor Martin Niemöller, who wrote the poem, “First They Came”, proves that safety is seldom an outcome of complicity or shared belief. The Christian pastor was a Nazi sympathiser until the Nazis took control of churches. Niemöller then had a change of heart. He excoriated the Nazis for which he was sent to a concentration camp.
Modern-day India has witnessed versions of Niemöller’s metamorphosis. For instance, supporters of India’s right-wing government and its extra-judicial bulldozer policy were shocked to be at the receiving end of this excess. They had celebrated such acts earlier because it targeted other communities.
The outsourcing of morality is not limited to vocation, gender, education or class. Further, though morality is one of the foundations of law, the social and individual applications of either differ vastly. The Epstein files highlight the difference between those who participated in Epstein’s criminal activities and those who chose to ignore these transgressions. For instance, some scientists, such as the astronomer, Lawrence Krauss, apparently sought research funding; others wanted to use that depraved individual’s contacts. What rational and moral argument were such people invoking to justify hobnobbing with Epstein? Can the desire to, say, further the frontiers of science rationalise one’s interaction with a sex offender? Do such august associations make Epstein less culpable? Does an individual’s absence of moral courage enable another’s criminal behaviour?
It can be difficult to differentiate among hierarchical obedience, moral cowardice, opportunistic complicity and herd mentality. But they do not exist in silos. Hierarchical obedience feeds on moral cowardice, opportunism, and complicity.
The Nuremberg Defense principle was rejected, proving that moral agency, ethics, and humane conduct cannot be watered down. Nor can it be outsourced to third-party justifications. Unfortunately, this realisation comes at a huge cost — mostly to others and, occasionally, to the self.