When someone commits an atrocity, which is worse: To deny any responsibility, or to pretend to have done the right thing?

I think to deny responsibility, the notion of doing the right thing is highly subjective.
If I shoot your dog and deny responsibility that makes me a liar as well.
If I shoot your dog just because I do not like dogs in the first place and claim it was the “right thing to do”, few would agree with my methodology, but…if the dog was vicious and had brutally ripped the face of of an innocent child it could be claimed that shooting said dog was the right thing to do.

Whose orders was the person in your qualifier following vs it was necessary, which can be defensible if the person was involved in a life and death situation or a war type conflict in both cases.

I will always say though pretending to have done something “right” to justify the means to the end of whatever occurred is beyond cowardly. Taking ownership and saying I did this because I thought or knew this was the right thing to do would be a much better position to take anytime something approaching the level of atrocity is concerned. Whether or not is comes even close to being justified requires more details and then be up to the courts to decide.

Neither one will get much traction in modern courts. William Calley used the ‘Following Orders’ defense for the My Lai massacre. He was found guilty of 21 counts of murder. I would imagine General Sherman’s ‘Drive to the Sea’ of the Civil war would have generated a lot of war crimes cases. in the ‘ends means’ defense. A current case of the parents of ‘Baby Doe’ where the mother claims the child was a demon and had to be killed. I doubt it will end well for her.

Clearly both are bad. I think the second is worse, because it can lead to a worse future outcome, whereas the first might only hide a past crime.

Bad apple and bad pear, which is worse?

The former, because at least you admit that you have the responsibility for the action. You just dump it to someone else in the latter.

@Mimishu1995 I think you have your former and latter mixed up.

“Pretending” you did the right thing at least admits having done the deed, so it does not absolve one of guilt nor does it avoid punishment, but it is far better and healthier all around than denying it, like OJ Simpson.

Your question is incredibly profound and thought-provoking. Truthfully, I’d assume either circumstance is bad, for you’d not merely be wallowing in self-deceit and disengaging yourself from the problem, but be denying having a healthy conscience to inform you of your wrongdoings.

Regardless of your attempts at distorting reality and pretending nothing ever occurred, any individual possessing some extent of morality will question their own righteousness once a moment of cowardice propels them to avoid accepting the proper penalty for their behavior.

You’d simply be lying to yourself if you were to reject having personal responsibility for whatever act you committed. For every action their is an inevitable consequence, be it good or bad. Despite the time you’ve devoted to living a lie, the reality of the circumstance will always prevail and transcend from the untruths.

Ultimately, the truth is underlying the falsehood of your actions and can never be denied, but only concealed beneath a sometimes convincing façade. Nonetheless, when you pretend to do the right thing, you are being amoral and living under a masquerade of fakery that suggests much of your character as a person.

Although you may well be admitting that you consciously know you did a wrong deed (that you presumably want to hide), you are being inauthentic and deceiving others through actions that are lacking in sincerely or valor.