Agency and Accountability at War

While we're still blogging insights gained from Elder Christofferson's talk, I want to address the debate he cited at the beginning of his talk. The debate was between a disguised King Henry and his troops:

At one point King Henry declares, “Methinks I could not die any where so contented as in the king’s company; his cause being just.” 

Michael Williams retorts, “That’s more than we know.” 

His companion agrees, “Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if we know we are the king’s subjects: if his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes the crime of it out of us.” 

Williams adds, “If the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make." 

Not surprisingly, King Henry disagrees. “Every subject’s duty is the king’s; but every subject’s soul is his own.”

According to Elder Christofferson, the playwright, William Shakespeare, never answers this debate, and for a time, I thought that Elder Christofferson didn't either, since we went on to talk about who's responsible for what happens to us, which in my opinion, is an entirely separate matter than who's responsible for what we do, though I suppose it deserves consideration, as Elder Christofferson certainly thought it did:

When things turn bad, there is a tendency to blame others or even God. Sometimes a sense of entitlement arises, and individuals or groups try to shift responsibility for their welfare to other people or to governments.

This is contrary to the nature of God's plan. He expects us to provide for ourselves as much as possible, and to forgive others if they, in any way, make life more difficult for us. When difficult circumstances arrive, it's our responsibility to endure them as well as we can, and see if we can make something positive out of the negative situation, rather than to try to pin the blame on whomever we think may be at fault. In that sense, the responsibility is ours.

But who is responsible for what we do? The answer seems obvious: we are; but what if we're just following orders, or acting as required by the laws of the land? Tying the concept back to King Henry's soldiers, who would be morally responsible if King Henry ordered his men to slaughter innocents, and they did? Would the king be responsible because he gave the order, or would the soldiers be responsible because they carried it out?

Elder Christofferson said:

God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, “that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” It is His plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama.

This seems to pin the blame on the soldiers, who, according to D&C 101: 78, are "accountable for [their] own sins." If they do something, the responsibility (good or bad) for that thing falls on them, no matter who or what told them to do it.

But what of the king, then? Is he off the hook for what his soldiers do because they're accountable for themselves, or is he at least partially responsible for what they do, given that he ordered them to do it? My opinion is that he, too, is responsible for how his soldiers act while under orders. We are each responsible for what we do, but that includes what we do to influence others. If I encourage someone to write a kind letter to someone, that's a good thing, even though they, not I, are the one writing the letter. If I advise someone to rob a bank, then that's a bad thing, even if I never get directly involved in the robbery. If someone has the ability to influence others for good or for evil, they have the responsibility to influence them for good, just as a person who has the ability to do either good or evil has the responsibility to do good.

So, if King Henry gave an order to slaughter a village full of innocent people, and his soldiers carried that order out, they'd both be responsible to God for what they did. Is that how it is in our own military? Do our soldiers have the moral responsibility to follow orders, even if those orders are evil, or do they have the moral responsibility to disobey evil orders? If one of our military commanders gave a soldier an order to kill an innocent person in cold blood, what should the soldier do?

This is a really tough question because, on the one hand, we don't want soldiers who'd heartlessly obey evil orders. We don't want to be that kind of country. On the other hand, we can't afford to have soldiers who disobey orders. I think I'd forgive a soldier who did something evil that he didn't want to do, but did anyway because he was commanded to do it. I wouldn't forgive his commander as easily, but I'd forgive the soldier. But would God? "God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, 'that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.'" I don't think God would let the soldier off the hook for "just following orders."

But then, what should he do? Should he just do nothing? Should he act against his commander somehow? If so, how? Not violently, I hope, but depending on the situation, that may be necessary. Hopefully, a soldier who has desires to do what's right and obey God would receive inspiration from God as to what he should do in that situation, because I certainly don't know what would be the best course of action would be. If I ever found myself in that situation, I don't know what I would do. Except pray. If I were ever in that situation, at the very least, I would most definitely pray.