Today in class we discussed responsibility. Who would be held responsible for war crimes and who would not. “The leaders of…” was the most common response. Ms. Finn pointed out a very controversial point, which is: should we hold a person accountable based on the numbers of deaths they’ve caused?
Could you hold a soldier accountable for the same war crimes as Eichmann?
Then she asked what types of “jobs” should be held accountable. The responses were again the leaders, of camps or parts of the Nazi government like the Hitler Youth.
I was researching Dr. Josef Mengele and I found this article.
Warning: semi-graphic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2875368
He performed extremely unethical and painful procedures on inmates. He also helped in the selection process of who went to the gas chambers after getting off the transport trains.
My question is should he also have been tried for war crimes? He said his work was in the name of science, and he was funded does that make him responsible or is that a form of taking orders?
He was also pursued by the Israeli secret service. Would it be “fair” to try him in an Israeli court instead of an international court? Should the victims pass the ultimate judgment?
11 comments:
I think that judgement should be passed by a combination of victims and those who are impartial or who were not directly impacted by the perpetrator. We cannot leave out the victims in those trials, because they are the only ones who can attest to the true horrors of what people like Dr. Mengele did, and therefore are the only ones who can pass judgement from the point of a victim. But they cannot be the only ones to judge, because their bias creates a neverending circle of resentment and anger.
Wow, that article is pretty intense! I cannot imagine him preforming experiments like these (even if he was "taking orders") because how is this research at all morally correct? The article did state, however, that while still in school, Mengele was told that "some lives are not worth living, and doctors as such were responsible for destroying such lives." With this in mind, he may have thought that what he was doing was "right."
While it's debatable as to whether Mengele was "just following orders" or not, either way, I think he should have been sentenced for a long period of time. It's hard for me to believe that Melenge was "just following orders" because he was conducting his OWN research, which was under his complete control. He was capable of choosing not to preform certain imhumane tests, but he did anyway. The article also stated that "Mengele performed the selections with relish, whistling continually and seeming to enjoy his grisly task; he would act in a caring and concerned manner when confronted with exhausted Jewish mothers and children, and then send them to the gas chambers a moment later" which leads me to believe that he didn't actually care about the lives he was taking away. If he was taking orders, he didn't show any remorse-- this is kind of illogical. If an individual claims that they are just following orders, then obviously he or she wasn't ok with the orders they were following. "Just taking orders" is a means of justification.
i think he should have been tried for war crimes - cruelty to prisoners. however, i don't think that the victims should pass ultimate judgment. like in the US, i think that he should be judged by a group of "normal" people - they can decide whether he's guilty or not. (and, if the evidence is strong enough against him, then he'll be judged guilty.) if the victims judge him, he is judged "unfairly." they can certainly testify against him, but i don't think they can pass final judgment.
also, i was thinking about the hippocratic oath. technically, medical school students must take the oath in order to get their MDs. however, i think they can now change the hippocratic oath (somewhat) so that it best suits their ideals (if you read the actual oath, you'll see why). is this oath similar to the one nazi soldiers took to obey hitler? if it is morally incorrect to break the hippocratic oath, is it morally incorrect to break the oath to hitler? what's the difference?
-coe
As we discussed in class, I think that often times confrontation of the perpetrator by the victim can be emotionally beneficial for both because it can often lead to some form of forgiveness and lessen the probability of violent revenge. Although I think that this is true, I don't think that victims should make the final judgment because there is too much bias to declare such a judgment "fair". I agree with everyone above that judgment should be passed by a group of individuals who are neutral to the issue.
This also reminded me of something i posted long ago about a group of photos that was recently donated to the Holocaust Museum that depicted high ranking Nazis carrying on a "normal" lifestyle. Many of the pictures were of Mengele as he calmly relaxed on the porch of his house and other similar actions. This makes me question whether he was "just following orders" because he seemed to be undisturbed by anything he was being "ordered" to do.
I think it would be "fair" for the trial to be in Israel, just as it was considered "fair" for the nerumberg trial to be in Germany. Both Israel (or the Jews who lived in israel) were as involved emotionally in the holocaust as the Germans (although clearly in different ways). I don't think the exact location of the trial is as important as the specific jury members.
And, as Coe mentioned, I also do not think that the victims should be people who ultimately pass judgments. I agree with Jillian that a mixture of victims and impartial parties are needed.
I found the point that Coe brought up to be especially interesting. It returns to the heart of when it is appropriate to disobey orders. We decided in class that soldiers, for instance, should disobey orders when they are immoral. However, once again, a problem with this is, morality is relative. Although sickening, Mengele could argue that he believed the Jews were not human, and therefore not worthy of receiving humane treatment.
Of course I believe that what he did was inhumane, yet how can we define what is right? What gives us authority to say that something is right or that someone did something wrong? Can we only say so by our standards? How does who gets to define morality play out in court?
this might sound like a stupid question... but what exactly IS morality? where do we get our morals and values? why do we say torturing and killing is wrong?
there isn't any set scientific reason not to hurt people. it's not evolutionarily wise to be "kind." (in fact, it might just be the opposite... if you believe in survival of the fittest) so then why does our society stress being "humane?" where does this need come from?
-coe
ok well i just tried to post a long post and it deleted it, so i'll try to keep this short. i was looking at Casey's previous post about the photos and found a reference to this album. http://yad-vashem.org.il/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/home_auschwitz_album.html
it is not graphic, but it does show people entering the camp. Question: should photos like these be used as evidence in cases like Mengele's? would they sway the jury's decision?
I think that Coe's comment on "WHAT is morality" is such a huge, daunting question, but what I immediately thought of was (from B&B) the phases of cognitive development and moral development that have been scientifically categorized. Jean Piaget said that in the last stage of cognitive development, starting from age 11 and on, an individual will begin to question reality, as well as begin to ponder deep questions of morality, justice and truth. Then, Lawrence Kohlberg founded a theory of moral development which basically categorized morality into three main stages: Preconventional morality (an eye for an eye), conventional morality (law and order orientation) and then lastly, principled morality (which is a refelction of society, ethics, and ones cosmic orientation in relation to the universal priciples).
I just found it interesting that sceintists such as Kohlberg and Paiget, who are professional psychologists, have tried to categorize and systematically organize the origin and development of the idea of "morality" in individual human beings.
I think the ideas of morality came with the ideas of society. Back in caveman days, someone realized that more could be accomplished if people lived in groups and created societies, and in order to do this, people couldn't kill each other all the time. Thus, ideas about common humanity were born and now it is considered morally "incorrect" to murder another human.
Post a Comment