The infamous and long-discredited legal defence: "I was only obeying orders.", has become almost the traditional excuse for cowardice & brutality.
Of the legal (There is a higher moral duty to disobey orders.) and non-legal counter-arguments, one of the most apposite was: "A man only does something that sits easily with his conscience."
How to express these opposing views, in Latin?
"mihi iussus parendi erant." = "By me orders had to be obeyed."
The English (I was only obeying orders.) is almost a plaintive, pathetic plea for sympathy e.g. "I only spilt some coffee."; the Latin, with the gerundive-of-obligation, reinforces the myth, being propagated, that the executioners were somehow compelled to commit their crimes.
The second is trickier. I tried a result (so-that) construction but the second clause is supposed to describe the accomplishment; not the effect the accomplishment had on the subject's mind, isn't it?
"vir solum facit aliquem ut non suam conscientiam perturbet" =
"A man only does something so that it does not trouble his conscience.";
does not work.
A relative clause:
"aliquid non fit viro quod suam conscientiam perturbet." =
"Something is not done by a man that troubles (may trouble) his conscience."
This, using the passive of "facio", doesn't sound correct either. Some help, please?