As we watched images of police donning military-style garb, the horror of our nation turning into a police state before our eyes became a distinct possibility. I was reminded of the Nuremberg defense: Befehl ist Befehl, translated as an order is an order. This same defense has been used to condone the overuse of force by individual police officers during the largely peaceful protests around our nation and the world.

Seeing posts on social media justify police force with the Nuremberg defense took my breath away. Many of my ancestors would have survived the Russian pogroms and the Holocaust if those carrying out the murderous orders of their superiors had refused to fulfill brutal directives.

Blind Obedience

Following the famous trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann—who invoked the Nuremberg defense—Yale professor, Stanley Millgram conducted his controversial obedience studies. In these studies, Millgram had participants repeatedly administer shocks to others at the direction of an authority figure. (The shocks, of course, were fake but the participants didn’t know this.)

The studies found that 65% of the participants followed orders even when they could hear the anguished pleas and tormented moans from those receiving the shocks. Millgram concluded that when people act under orders, they become distanced from their actions.

Millgram came under attack for his experiments both from an ethical standpoint and a methodological one. Some said that participants could see through the hoax and realized the shocks were fake.

Nonetheless, Millgram’s studies have been replicated many times in Europe. (A decade after these obedience studies were published, the American Psychological Association banned studies that cause participants serious distress.) The results from European obedience studies confirm Millgram’s findings. When people feel disconnected from others, they blindly obey orders.

Why We Behave Unethically

In a nutshell, people obey orders to receive rewards, avoid punishment or when they think authority figures are correct. Fear of retribution or punishment is likely the most common reason why we don’t stand up to immoral authority figures. Fear of being reprimanded, fired or worse can prevent us from doing what we know is right. Even the infantile fear of being ridiculed is what drives many of us from behaving morally.

Most ‘woke’ citizens can see that our current POTUS often behaves immorally. Perhaps you’ve been frustrated by his enablers, who don’t defy his orders or rebuke his outlandish and dangerous speech and behaviors. Although a small percentage may believe he is correct, the others allow their fear of reprimand and ridicule to stand in the way of behaving ethically. In addition, a desire to win reelection (the reward) may motivate some to passively obey.

The Clueless Defense

Francesca Gino, a behavioral scientist at Harvard University, published a 2015 research paper outlining  two types of unethical behavior. Gino distinguishes between unintentional vs. intentional unethical behavior. The former describes actions that are beyond someone’s awareness; the later describes actions that are known to be wrong but the person is unaware of why.

Like the Nuremberg defense, being clueless doesn’t absolve any of us of responsibility for our behavior. Ignorance in the eyes of the law is rarely a defense. But not all unethical behaviors are illegal.

Plenty of behaviors are lawful, yet immoral. Lying (except under oath) is a common unethical, yet, lawful act; breaking promises is generally not illegal except under contract law; not giving employees raises is legal but unethical.

When it comes to harming others—physically, emotionally or economically— one cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. Walking past a stranger needing our help, however, is legal but most of us would agree, it is immoral.

A Short Leap from Teenhood to Adulthood

Peer pressure is a big factor as to why teens make bad choices; unfortunately, peer pressure can also result in adults behaving badly. Social pressures can work to reinforce unethical actions as well as ethical ones.

The disturbing video of the elderly Buffalo activist being pushed to the ground by two policemen ended with a large group officers walking past this man as he lay motionless, bleeding from his head. In the video, you see one cop, who momentarily stops, before his comrades chastise him to keep moving. Likely, his better instincts told him to stop and help; his basest instincts led him to follow his peers.

Having read stories about cops who defied orders they thought were unethical, one realizes how often the system rewards those who comply and punishes those who defy orders. The unofficial “blue wall of silence” is stronger than the official “duty to intervene.”

Social Solidarity

One hopeful aspect of Millgram’s obedience studies is the slight variation he added to some of his experiments: that of adding another participant (in on the ruse), who objected to administering shocks to others. Compliance in giving shocks went way down when participants saw others objecting.

Social or political solidarity occurs when members of a majority challenge authority and the status quo in solidarity with a minority group. Slavery was abolished because of social solidarity; Hitler’s Nazism ended because the majority helped a minority; same sex marriage could only be legalized with support of the majority.

The transforming power of social solidarity doesn’t happen overnight but when a tipping point is reached, turning back the clock is not an option. As much as reactionaries would like us to return to the good/bad old days, the tide doesn’t move in one direction forever.

Befehl ist nicht gut genug: an order is not good enough.