Throughout history, humans have questioned whether an individual submissively carrying out immoral orders, or the instigator of the cruel action, is guiltier. On the surface it would seem that the mastermind behind the torment of an innocent person should be held more accountable than someone simply following orders. However, if one looks deeper into this idea, it is discovered that the henchman is just as guilty of the crime. For example, if a popular, aggressive bully orders a classmate to abuse a smaller, less popular student on the playground, that bully will be guilty of tormenting an innocent child. Clearly, the bully should be held accountable for acting cruelly toward another human being no matter what his reasons. The actual inflictor of the abuse is also immensely guilty of the crime. Although the student disagrees with the bully’s orders, the student does not stand up for the victim out of fear. The student succumbs to the bully in hopes of sparing himself the same fate. The bully ultimately has two victims, while the follower has one. Nonetheless, both individuals are guilty.

            The ultimate example of this theory is the tragedy of the Holocaust. Through his charisma and persuasive nature, Hitler brainwashed much of the world to despise certain individuals simply because they harbored different beliefs and characteristics than him and his “superior race.” Hitler called for his soldiers to coldly torture and kill their fellow human beings. These people carried out his orders, either out of fear of becoming his next victim, or because they did not have the strength to stand up against an evil, powerful dictator. Many followers were engulfed by “mob mentality” and were persuaded by the hysteria triggered by Hitler to discriminate against minority races. Just like the student joining in cruelty against another child on the playground, the soldiers under Hitler’s command robotically carried out his directions to kill innocent human beings. For instance, the story of Victor Capesius is told in the article “Can You Learn Anything From a Void?” Capesius was a pharmacist and adherent of Hitler who worked at Auschwitz, a Nazi concentration camp. Capesius willfully allowed his friends and neighbors to be murdered at this camp. This cruel doctor stood by and watched people who trusted him be coldly killed, and he made no effort to put a stop to the injustice. As in reality, the idea of guilty onlookers is displayed in many literary works, such as Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In this play, Macbeth orders Banquo, an innocent man, to be murdered to ensure Macbeth’s reign as king. The actual murderers are just as responsible for Banquo’s death as Macbeth because they followed through with an action that is unquestionably immoral and unethical. Once again, the individuals carrying out unjust orders are just as guilty as the person instructing the crime to be completed. Individuals need to muster up the courage to stay true to their moral convictions, no matter what the consequences may be. The only way in which injustice can be terminated is if all humans think and act ethically and refuse to complete deeds that are cruel simply because it is popular. Observers of evil actions, and the individuals who are coerced into carrying out morally wrong orders, have the duty to fight against wrongdoings and need to have the strength to stand up for what is ethically right.