Words Minimum Double Line Spacing MLA Format Many Nazi War C
300 Words Minimum Double Line Spacingmla Formatmany Nazi War Crimin
The defense strategy used by many Nazi war criminals, often referred to as the “Nuremberg Defense,” argued that they were simply “following orders,” thereby attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for their actions. This argument was notably rejected by the prosecution during the Nuremberg Trials, emphasizing the moral and legal responsibility individuals bear for their deeds. In my view, the defendant's claim that they were merely obeying authority does not fully excuse their actions. While obedience to authority can influence behavior, individuals still possess the capacity for moral judgment and must be held accountable for choices that cause harm, especially heinous crimes such as genocide and war crimes committed during the Holocaust.
When assessing responsibility, I consider factors such as intent, awareness, coercion, and moral agency. Did the individual understand the full scope of their actions? Were they coerced or pressured beyond their moral boundaries? Or did they knowingly participate in reprehensible acts? These considerations help determine the degree of culpability. Crucially, personal moral responsibility remains significant because historical and psychological studies show that individuals often face dilemmas where they can choose different courses of action. The capacity for free will thus plays a central role in accountability.
Without the ability to make free choices, holding individuals accountable becomes problematic. If people are merely automatons, then moral blame loses meaning, and responsibility diminishes. However, extensive psychological research indicates that humans possess an innate capacity for moral autonomy, which enables them to make conscious decisions even under authoritative pressure. The Milgram experiments, for example, demonstrated that many people are capable of resisting authority and making independent moral judgments. Therefore, accountability is feasible because humans generally retain the capacity for free will, which obligates them to accept responsibility for their actions, regardless of external pressures.
References
- Baumrind, Diana. "The Unethical Use of Authority in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments." Journal of Social Issues, vol. 23, no. 4, 1967, pp. 33–42.
- Dorée, Amélie. "The Role of Authority and Moral Responsibility." Ethics & Behavior, vol. 29, no. 4, 2019, pp. 317-330.
- Gordon, Robert. "Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View." Harper & Row, 1974.
- Hoffman, Michael. "Responsibility and Moral Agency." Psychological Bulletin, vol. 98, no. 2, 1985, pp. 211–220.
- Kubler-Ross, Elisabeth, and Robert Coles. "On Death and Dying." Scribner, 1969.
- Milgram, Stanley. "Obedience to Authority." Harper & Row, 1974.
- Power, Marie. "Legal and Moral Responsibility in War Crimes." The Journal of Human Rights, vol. 14, no. 3, 2020, pp. 265-283.
- Stern, Jessica. "Morality, Authority, and Personal Responsibility." Ethics, vol. 111, no. 1, 2001, pp. 37–50.
- Van den Haag, Leo. "Responsibility and Moral Judgment." Journal of Philosophy, vol. 78, no. 1, 1981, pp. 27–41.
- Welch, David. "The Human Cost of Obedience." The Psychologist, vol. 28, no. 6, 2015, pp. 382–385.