Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

    • Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      when the two clash with each other what do you think should win?

      are you on the side of Legal Positivism? which basically says the law is what it is, or
      Natural Law? which is more or less like an unjust law is not a law
      Note: I'm hugely simplifying the two terms but look them up if you want a better understanding

      On one of my classes we were discussing the Nuremberg Trails. The Nazi leaders were on trials for things they committed when it was their law to do so. and yet, they were charged for crimes against humanity because even though they were following the law, their "crimes" were still so grotesque that they had to go to trial as war criminals and on crimes against humanity. in that sense, morality overcame law. There was no precedent, and there was no law or something like this seen before. the attorneys kindda made it up as they went along.

      do you think that was fair and that they should be held accountable, or they shouldn't have gone to trial because they were following the law
      [CENTER]
      [/CENTER]

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Papa Bear ().

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      I'm not a great fan of natural law. Hobbes and his state of nature had something going for it, but I prefer Rawls' veil of ignorance idea where natural law is concerned. Nonetheless, I dislike the notion there can be an implicit social contract at all.

      Moving away from theory though, and looking at the practicality of the case, I don't think that it is a legitimate excuse that your own laws allowed your actions. I could move to an un-governed area of Earth (there are a few, yes) and make my own laws which allow anything, however I'm still responsible for my actions. However, if I've got my dates right, the League of Nations/UN hadn't come into existence yet, so they hadn't made their universal declarations of human rights (whether those declarations are legitimate or not).

      In short, never having looked at the Nuremburg trials at all, I suspect that the grounds for prosecution are very shaky, but that given the incredible acts committed by the accused Nazis, nobody could not attempt to prosecute them.

      No, I don't think it was fair. Just would be a stretch, however it was inevitable that mankind would attempt to punish those people, as indeed they did.
      [CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
      [/COLOR][/CENTER]

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      I think that they were forced into their actions by the government, but they might have been able to do something about it. This is a very good debate topic, and I can see both sides of the argument. If I had to pick, probably legal positivism, since the laws were made very carefully, and they were designed as a guide for nearly all situations.
      [COLOR="Green"]Offer help, and others will offer it to you.[/COLOR]
      [COLOR="DarkOrange"]You get what you deserve.[/COLOR]
      [COLOR="SeaGreen"]Remember...[/COLOR]:cool:

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      I think any adult that doesn't have a gun or similar torture device pointed directly at their head or the head of their family should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of their intentions. If that consequence is to trust and observe the policies of a government that gets overthrown thus subjugating them to the laws of the conquering government, then so be it. We are responsible for every choice. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but its still our choice. Just my opinion.
      "Nothing ruins the taste of peanut butter like unrequited love" - Charlie Brown

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      Jarndyce wrote:

      , if I've got my dates right, the League of Nations/UN hadn't come into existence yet, so they hadn't made their universal declarations of human rights (whether those declarations are legitimate or not).

      In short, never having looked at the Nuremburg trials at all, I suspect that the grounds for prosecution are very shaky, but that given the incredible acts committed by the accused Nazis, nobody could not attempt to prosecute them.

      No, I don't think it was fair. Just would be a stretch, however it was inevitable that mankind would attempt to punish those people, as indeed they did.[/COLOR]
      the prosecution were kindda making it up as they went a long. There was no universal social contract before the Nuremberg trials.

      I agree that they nazis had to pay, but that's my conscience talking. On legal grounds, the prosecution really didn't have much standing for their case. The nazis were tried as criminals, but a criminal is someone who breaks the law. The prosecution had to come up with new crimes such as "crimes against humanity" and relying solely on Natural law. Even the judges had nothing to based their ruling on. It all came down to morality i think.

      ---------- Post added at 09:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------

      Nickb426 wrote:

      I think that they were forced into their actions by the government, but they might have been able to do something about it.


      If they didn't follow orders or followed their laws then they'd be considered criminals under nazi Germany standards. So yea, they were in a very tricky position

      ---------- Post added at 09:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 PM ----------

      Twenty-Five_25 wrote:

      I think any adult that doesn't have a gun or similar torture device pointed directly at their head or the head of their family should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of their intentions. If that consequence is to trust and observe the policies of a government that gets overthrown thus subjugating them to the laws of the conquering government, then so be it. We are responsible for every choice. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but its still our choice. Just my opinion.


      Soldiers are taught to follow orders, not question them. Sometimes they're told to do something but they're not even informed of the whole mission, they still do it because they trust their government and those are their orders, And I think a lot of German people are like that in the sense that they are naturally obedient.
      [CENTER]
      [/CENTER]

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Papa Bear ().

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials



      Soldiers are taught to follow orders, not question them. Sometimes they're told to do something but they're not even informed of the whole mission, they still do it because they trust their government and those are their orders, And I think a lot of German people are like that in the sense that they are naturally obedient.


      Quite often you don't know the full picture actually. At least in current times there is quite a focus on teaching people to recognise the difference between legal and illegal orders though, that probably wasn't around in WWII!
      [CENTER][COLOR="Green"]If you have nothing to say, say nothing.
      [/COLOR][/CENTER]

    • Re: Morality vs. Law / Nuremberg Trials

      @Papa Bear - They still chose to be soldiers. They still chose not to flee and instead cooperate with their government. My brother chose to be a soldier. Thus he's choosing to allow himself to be trained to follow orders. I think saying "i was just following orders", as necessary as it may be for the chain of command, is still a convenient way of negating responsibility. Does it serve its purpose? Sure. Are they bad people? Not likely. They're not children though, they're responsible for their choices.

      Now is this still a generalization with possible exceptions, sure... but generally speaking, your consequences are your consequences no matter how you try to sugar coat it or pin it on someone or something else.
      "Nothing ruins the taste of peanut butter like unrequited love" - Charlie Brown