FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Chrisimo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Indeed it's not.

However, add the word "immoral" to the "illegal" part. Soldiers are required to NOT follow orders that are immoral and/or illegal.

Then there's that whole bit about Germany losing and the victors determining who broke what laws.
But what is immoral? Morality is a personal matter. Some people do not have morals at all. Some people say it way morally ok to firebomb Dresden (because Germany started the war). Some think different. I think your last sentence says it all. Every person has his/her own morals. The morals of those with power however are those that count.
If someone has to explain that systematically murdering, torturing, and experimenting on millions of people simply because they worship differently or have a different cultural background is immoral...

Seriously. Do you really think morality is THAT relative?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

FEOS wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Indeed it's not.

However, add the word "immoral" to the "illegal" part. Soldiers are required to NOT follow orders that are immoral and/or illegal.

Then there's that whole bit about Germany losing and the victors determining who broke what laws.
But what is immoral? Morality is a personal matter. Some people do not have morals at all. Some people say it way morally ok to firebomb Dresden (because Germany started the war). Some think different. I think your last sentence says it all. Every person has his/her own morals. The morals of those with power however are those that count.
If someone has to explain that systematically murdering, torturing, and experimenting on millions of people simply because they worship differently or have a different cultural background is immoral...

Seriously. Do you really think morality is THAT relative?
Are morals not relative when the destruction of European Jews was considered a moral act not only by the government of Nazi Germany, but also ordinary citizens, bolstered by the anti-Semitism of numerous governments and a large part of the European population, both pre-war and post-war?

Morality is completely relative and subjective to the views of each individual person. Morals are a human concept, and we mistake common morals for absolute morals. The majority cannot decide on a definition of what is moral when it is not common to everyone.
MGS3_GrayFox
Member
+50|6138

FEOS wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Indeed it's not.

However, add the word "immoral" to the "illegal" part. Soldiers are required to NOT follow orders that are immoral and/or illegal.

Then there's that whole bit about Germany losing and the victors determining who broke what laws.
But what is immoral? Morality is a personal matter. Some people do not have morals at all. Some people say it way morally ok to firebomb Dresden (because Germany started the war). Some think different. I think your last sentence says it all. Every person has his/her own morals. The morals of those with power however are those that count.
If someone has to explain that systematically murdering, torturing, and experimenting on millions of people simply because they worship differently or have a different cultural background is immoral...

Seriously. Do you really think morality is THAT relative?
In the real world morality is THAT relative and a lot more.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

FEOS wrote:

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.
I apologize, but I'm not understanding. In what way is morality relative "to a degree"?
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6381|'Murka

Drakef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.
I apologize, but I'm not understanding. In what way is morality relative "to a degree"?
What isn't clear?

What is morally acceptable in one culture may not be morally acceptable elsewhere (hence, the term "relative", as in "relative to other cultures"). That does not make it OK to do the deed, particularly if you are on the losing side of both the conflict and world opinion/law.

Degrees come into play when you start looking at the actions themselves. For example, female castration is morally reprehensible in most Western cultures, but is perfectly acceptable in others. Does that call for moral outrage from the global community? Not necessarily.

Systematic killing of entire ethnic groups is another issue entirely.

See the degree of moral relativity there?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441

usmarine wrote:

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
Note though that there was no equivalent of a court martial in Nazi Germany. The system of law and jurisprudence in Nazi Germany was such so that these soldiers were effectively committing perfectly legal acts when they followed the orders of their superiors. Law and morality are two areas that constantly overlap and coincide- and in fact a great deal of mainstream public morality is derived from the system of law that governs society. So bearing in mind these soldiers had no concept of their acts being illegal and wrong in a judicial sense... does this make their argument of "just following orders" any stronger?

English judges and law academics had a big debate about this law & morality topic, with Nazi Germany being used as an example of what generally constitutes an ineffective and completely immoral law system that should be ignored and disregarded by any reasonable and rationally thinking moral person. However, regardless of how the law system seemed to the rest of the world... they were the laws of that country at the time of the acts being executed- so there was no illegal or immoral deed being done in terms of the German moral and legal codes. Of course you can argue that the acts were so vile and base that they must have appealed to the common humanity in everyone as being wrong and abhorrent- but you have to remember that psychologically these men were under great pressure and duress (often for the sake of their own life or livelihood, as mentioned) and also were raised and indoctrinated in the Nazi forces through propaganda, disinformation campaigns and a rather 'perverted' sense of public morality (e.g. widespread anti-Semitism).

I'm personally not going to pass verdict or make a definitive answer to this topic; it's a huge area with a lot of psychological and human factors to take into account, as well as the entire history behind the events that helped the Nazi's to justify what they were doing as being 'right'. Just remember how easy it is to be disillusioned and brainwashed by effective agitprop, Jingoism etc. And also remember that at a basic-primary psychological level our main motive is our own self-survival; when put in a situation of "me or them"- I'm sure many Nazi officers and soldiers chose the latter.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-13 20:45:15)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6732

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
Note though that there was no equivalent of a court martial in Nazi Germany.
twas my point
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

FEOS wrote:

Drakef wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I submit that morality is relative TO A DEGREE. Just because the ones doing the deed feel it is morally OK does not make it so.

Do you think it's morally OK to behead innocent civilians on film? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Do you think it's morally OK to stone a woman to death because she was accused of adultery? Of course not. But those that did it do.

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.
I apologize, but I'm not understanding. In what way is morality relative "to a degree"?
What isn't clear?

What is morally acceptable in one culture may not be morally acceptable elsewhere (hence, the term "relative", as in "relative to other cultures"). That does not make it OK to do the deed, particularly if you are on the losing side of both the conflict and world opinion/law.

Degrees come into play when you start looking at the actions themselves. For example, female castration is morally reprehensible in most Western cultures, but is perfectly acceptable in others. Does that call for moral outrage from the global community? Not necessarily.

Systematic killing of entire ethnic groups is another issue entirely.

See the degree of moral relativity there?
I see morality as completely relative, with no standard whatsoever, and what you wrote does not disagree at all, except perhaps the bit about systematic killings. That, too, is completely relative. Perhaps I mistook what you said, but it appears that we agree.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441

usmarine wrote:

Uzique wrote:

usmarine wrote:

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
Note though that there was no equivalent of a court martial in Nazi Germany.
twas my point
A court martial is the military form of discipline and 'regulation'- no? A system that imposes punishments upon military personnel if they break the various laws and codes/rules of warfare. My point was more so that this 'legal' system of punishment and reprimand was not there in Nazi Germany- the genocide committed against the Jews was not illegal in the German law at the time, because the State had basically rewritten (or at least controlled decisions) on German jurisprudence. As I said, a lot of popular morality is derived from law- so without this formal system of punishment and this basic concept of an action being 'wrong' in a legal sense, their perspective and interpretation of their own acts would have been different.

The threat of death did occur though yes, although this was more the thread of a totalitarian regime and State power- not a legal threat or sanction in the same way that a court martial is. That's how I see it anyway, perhaps scholarly articles and historians think/know that the execution of soldiers was a form of Nazi military regulation.

Drakef wrote:

I see morality as completely relative, with no standard whatsoever, and what you wrote does not disagree at all, except perhaps the bit about systematic killings. That, too, is completely relative. Perhaps I mistook what you said, but it appears that we agree.
Characteristically morals don't have a standard really. They change with time and public opinion/views, and are only actually codified and set in concrete in pieces of law and legislation. Otherwise a moral code is just a basic concept of what is 'Right or Wrong' with no severe reprimand for the latter being in place. If you break the moral code of your community / society then of course you are shunned and perhaps even ostracized. But it's not quite the same as being told by your officer that if you don't fulfill an order you will be shot in the head. I would also tend to agree on the topic of there being a 'relative human morality'- you know, a basic level grasp of what is fundamentally right or wrong (e.g. genocide). But you have to remember that popular morality is dictated by the laws of the state and the attitudes of the people within it. In a largely anti-Semitic society with a totalitarian control over outside-influence and the media, you have to question whether any of these acts would have actually appealed to these people's sense of humanity (i.e. the relative moral code). They were basically living in their own propaganda-driven bubble with an extremely distorted view on world events.

Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-13 20:56:03)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5723

FEOS wrote:

What is morally acceptable in one culture may not be morally acceptable elsewhere (hence, the term "relative", as in "relative to other cultures"). That does not make it OK to do the deed, particularly if you are on the losing side of both the conflict and world opinion/law.

Degrees come into play when you start looking at the actions themselves. For example, female castration is morally reprehensible in most Western cultures, but is perfectly acceptable in others. Does that call for moral outrage from the global community? Not necessarily.

Systematic killing of entire ethnic groups is another issue entirely.

See the degree of moral relativity there?
Look, the only difference between mass killings and female castration is that mass killings and killings in general may be more universally seen as immoral. And I'm only making a guess here. Perhaps a lot of people don't consider mass killings that immoral but simply don't say it because of possible retributions in society. People in general have accepted the fact that uncontrolled killings of other people mostly don't help society. Therefore killing other people is immoral. This was invented by humans, though.
If an alien came to the world it might see things completely different. It probably would have no concept of morals at all. The same for a human developed highly intelligent computer (think Skynet). If no human programs that moral codes into it, it would know nothing of them. How can you say that some moral values are universal then?
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5723

usmarine wrote:

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
I think you are too generous. Not everyone who did not follow an order was executed or put into a concentration camp. Of course, Waffen SS soliders were more likely to face harsh consequences, but the common soldier was not. And if someone didn't to do the job of organisatating the concentration camps he surely wouldn't have been executed. He (and his family) would probably face some retribution ("They are not loyal Nazis"), yes.
The fact is that most people in germany were ok with Hitler. They did not personally want to kill Jews, but they didn't mind very much either. You know, if most people really were against the Nazis, they wouldn't have had the power they had. But it was a totalitarian regime, which in contrast to a simple dictatorship needs its people to follow it on a free will. It was somewhat like a religious cult ("We are the Herrenvolk and we are on our way to the holy land (getting Lebensraum). But we have a great enemy (the Jew) who will undo us if we are not prepared to fight him as one people. A single Person is nothing, the Volk is everything). And since Hitler generated a lot of good things at first (no unemployment, restoring of pride, increaed value of the family), many were satisfied with it and believed in it or at least did nothing against it.
Drakef
Cheeseburger Logicist
+117|6332|Vancouver

Uzique wrote:

Characteristically morals don't have a standard really. They change with time and public opinion/views, and are only actually codified and set in concrete in pieces of law and legislation. Otherwise a moral code is just a basic concept of what is 'Right or Wrong' with no severe reprimand for the latter being in place. If you break the moral code of your community / society then of course you are shunned and perhaps even ostracized. But it's not quite the same as being told by your officer that if you don't fulfill an order you will be shot in the head. I would also tend to agree on the topic of there being a 'relative human morality'- you know, a basic level grasp of what is fundamentally right or wrong (e.g. genocide). But you have to remember that popular morality is dictated by the laws of the state and the attitudes of the people within it. In a largely anti-Semitic society with a totalitarian control over outside-influence and the media, you have to question whether any of these acts would have actually appealed to these people's sense of humanity (i.e. the relative moral code). They were basically living in their own propaganda-driven bubble with an extremely distorted view on world events.
Well, of course, this is fairly obvious.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Relative morality is applicable to a specific population, not to the world as a whole. The fact that that population feels an action is morally acceptable does not make it morally acceptable to the rest of the world. Otherwise, there would be no laws against genocide and other crimes against humanity.
You mean like torture, detention without trial, premeditated illegal wars?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6154|Ireland
It was his job as a human being not to " follow " orders.  Yes he would have been killed for doing so, but that is the side he choose to fight on.  What about all the French that were put to death for not " following " Nazi orders?

Fact is that all Nazis are responsible for what they enabled Hitler to do.  Most knew what was going on and all new they were invading France, England, Russia......... which was a crime against humanity in itself.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441
But as I said you have to see things from their perspective, not from an objective human-perspective. The subjective point of view is considered in legal tests just as often as the objective standard is... and their subjective view was heavily distorted by propaganda, inflated by nationalism and pride and spurred on by a charismatic and 'heroic' leader. Of course everyone in the Western world outright disagrees with what occurred- but to the Nazi's at the time it was very much a march of reclamation against the 'tyrannical' Treaty of Versailles and a show of Germany's new found economic and militaristic strength. To use a modern comparison, America had the same unnecessary show of military force shortly after the Iraqi-Kuwait invasion, in the bombing raids of the Gulf War... there wasn't much Western dissent over that.

People mentioning this whole concept of 'humanity' and a moral code that is the standard for 'being human' forget that it is easy to become brainwashed and/or heavily disillusioned and deranged. The Nazi state was a strange thing indeed, to pick people up from such great poverty and misery to (sadly) one of Germany's most prosperous and powerful periods of the last century.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6154|Ireland

Uzique wrote:

But as I said you have to see things from their perspective, not from an objective human-perspective. The subjective point of view is considered in legal tests just as often as the objective standard is... and their subjective view was heavily distorted by propaganda, inflated by nationalism and pride and spurred on by a charismatic and 'heroic' leader. Of course everyone in the Western world outright disagrees with what occurred- but to the Nazi's at the time it was very much a march of reclamation against the 'tyrannical' Treaty of Versailles and a show of Germany's new found economic and militaristic strength. To use a modern comparison, America had the same unnecessary show of military force shortly after the Iraqi-Kuwait invasion, in the bombing raids of the Gulf War... there wasn't much Western dissent over that.

People mentioning this whole concept of 'humanity' and a moral code that is the standard for 'being human' forget that it is easy to become brainwashed and/or heavily disillusioned and deranged. The Nazi state was a strange thing indeed, to pick people up from such great poverty and misery to (sadly) one of Germany's most prosperous and powerful periods of the last century.
I'm sorry, but to you everyone is a victim and incapable of thought.  There are plenty of examples of Germans that knew the Nazi party was fucked up and they were silenced (killed) or fled the country. 

This Asshat Nazi was one of the people who killed those that knew Hitler was insane.  He was the one who chose to " follow " orders.
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6470|so randum

usmarine wrote:

hard to say really.  as an american, you do not follow orders that are morally wrong or you face a court martial.  in nazi germany back then, if you did not follow orders you would be killed almost instantly.  tough call tbh.  cant say i could put myself in his shoes.
best answer here.

On a side note - do you know one of the main factors that stopped the germans shooting prisoners, and lead to them gassing them?

The cost of bullets/dead people vs the cost of gas/dead people.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441
Of course, efficiency and the cost to the State were huge factors in the devising of the 'Final Solution'.

Isn't that why Hitler scrapped the plans to ship all the Jews off to Madagascar for a permanent holiday?

.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6470|so randum

Uzique wrote:

Of course, efficiency and the cost to the State were huge factors in the devising of the 'Final Solution'.

Isn't that why Hitler scrapped the plans to ship all the Jews off to Madagascar for a permanent holiday?

.
that and logistics+time
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441

FatherTed wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Of course, efficiency and the cost to the State were huge factors in the devising of the 'Final Solution'.

Isn't that why Hitler scrapped the plans to ship all the Jews off to Madagascar for a permanent holiday?

.
that and logistics+time
"Efficiency".

Economic efficiency is a general term in economics describing how well a system is performing, in generating the maximum desired output for given inputs with available technology. Efficiency is improved if more output is generated without changing inputs, or in other words, the amount of "friction" or "waste" is reduced.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ratzinger
Member
+43|6362|Wollongong, NSW, Australia
"The Nuremburg defense" ie "I was only following orders" was rendered unacceptable by these trials, and has been since by precedent.

The moral correctness of this is irrelevant; any attempt to use this concept as a defense is doomed to failure by this legal precedent.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6441

Ratzinger wrote:

"The Nuremburg defense" ie "I was only following orders" was rendered unacceptable by these trials, and has been since by precedent.

The moral correctness of this is irrelevant; any attempt to use this concept as a defense is doomed to failure by this legal precedent.
English law defenses:

Duress by threat;
Duress by circumstance;
Necessity.

Look up them on Wikipedia, the English law still recognises several defenses that involve the defendant being 'forced' to commit an illegal act with a threat of death or serious injury being involved. But yes to a degree you are right, judges will normally always direct the jury and state that the defendant has no 'real' defense if all s/he has to say for themselves is "I was only following orders".
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard