Is Colonel Kappler A Deontologist?

Browning claims that the Germans were blindly following orders. Thus the responsibility for the crimes falls on those who gave the orders. This in and of

When it comes to the topic of Simon Wiesenthal not forgiving a dying SS soldier for his crimes, most of us will readily agree that it’s a debatable topic. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of if Wiesenthal should have forgiven the soldier. Whereas some are convinced that he made the right choice in not forgiving the soldier, others maintain that he should have let the soldier die peacefully, guilt free, and forgiven. I agree with Wiesenthal’s decision to not forgive the dying SS soldier because he cannot speak for all the other Jews who have been killed by this man. In Simon Wiesenthal’s book, The Sunflower, he asks the reader what they would have done in his position with the SS soldier. If I was Wiesenthal, I wouldn’t have forgiven the man as I cannot make decisions for others and because the soldier was not sincere in his apology for the crimes he was involved in.

This action is one that could only come about in war. Due to the war people are more willing to act out of character and in some situations even forced to. This is best represented when Thucydides writes “Ill-considered boldness was counted as loyal manliness; prudent hesitation was held to be cowardice in disguise, and moderation merely the cloak of an unmanly nature” (3.82). The soldiers who are committing these atrocities are simply followers of a democratic regime. The leaders of this regime are in fact giving them the command to slaughter innocent people simply because they stand for an opposing cause. No leaders of good virtue, would command their followers to commit such acts, in modern society acts such as this would be considered war crimes.

Goldhagen’s view of the perpetrators of the Holocaust can be seen as super-intentionalist in the way he views the German population to have largely willingly colluded with the Nazi regime because they to held the same eliminationalist anti-Semitic views. To make this point, he uses what he sees as the willingness of ordinary, largely untrained and unindoctrinated Germans in the Reserve Police Battalions to carry out mass killings of Jews (Goldhagen: 1997:206). This means he portrays the perpetrators of the Jozefow massacre as “willing executioners” and goes at great length to show them to simply be “ordinary Germans” based on their political, socio-economic and geographical background (Goldhagen: 1997: 213). Central to Goldhagen’s argument that the Policemen massacred Jews willingly, is their reluctance to excuse themselves from the operation when given the opportunity. The main “opportunity” in which to do this, is the moment before the massacre, when Major Trapp (the officer in charge of the

Synopsis – Hitler’s Willing Executioners is a work that may change our understanding of the Holocaust and of Germany during the Nazi period. Daniel Goldhagen has revisited a question that history has come to treat as settled, and his researches have led him to the inescapable conclusion that none of the established answers holds true. Drawing on materials either unexplored or neglected by previous scholars, Goldhagen presents new evidence to show that many beliefs about the killers are fallacies. They were not primarily SS men or Nazi Party members, but perfectly ordinary Germans from all walks of life, men who brutalized and murdered Jews both willingly and zealously. “They acted as they did because of

In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

(Polonsky)These lucky ones were given false documents to escape concentration camps and even death. These soldiers that carried out brutal killings of Jews could have quite possibly made the mistake of killing the wrong people. I say this because during the book after the

The main sources for this book consist of archival documents and court records of the Holocaust. The specific testimony, court records, investigation records, and prosecution documents of members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 members are used as sources. In this book, Christopher Browning shows in minute detail the sequence of events and individual reactions that turn ordinary men into killers. His arguments make sense. He makes no unwarranted assumptions. The cause and effect statements made and arguments presented are logical and well developed. Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning accounts for the actions of the German Order Police (more specifically the actions of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in Poland) and the role they played in the Second World War during the Jewish Holocaust. Police Battalion 101 was composed of veterans from World War One and men too old to be

They have fought against an armed enemy and have fallen in the fight, but I... I am left here with my guilt”(54). Karl hesitated at the end because his suffering was much longer than the others. Jewish people were killed instantly after Nazi soldiers noticed they were incapable of work and Karl’s comrades were given a pill in the hospital to die instantly but Karl, Karl was left with the guilt. Since Karl waited until he was in the hospital to apologize, was his apology

When examining the morality of an action, one must consider several factors, including the consequences, intentions, intrinsic nature of the act, and the beneficial or harmful effects the action has on others. The classic film, To Kill A Mockingbird, depicts several instances where a character’s actions may be perceived as morally wrong, based on the fundamental principles of ethical theories. In the following, I will discuss the case where Atticus makes a choice to defend Tom Robinson, and I will apply two ethical theories to explain how his act could be considered morally wrong or morally right. Ultimately, I will illustrate that through a utilitarian perspective, Atticus’ action can be considered wrong, whereas a Kantian perspective

However according to the rule based view of deontology, the taking of a life is wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right. To kill as of to save others’ lives is not an option as the act of killing is being promoted. It can be perceived that the captain, in his own wisdom, is of the opinion that his killing of the twenty Indians is justified.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

From the research I have done Keitel is portrayed as a disgraced desk soldier whose only defence in the trial was that he was obeying orders. I still do not agree with Wilhelm’s argument because he had a choice not to follow through with Hitler’s wishes but instead signed orders for various ruthless killings and attacks. Keitel knew his actions were really obscene but he chose to go through with them to please Hitler. The judge’s final verdict for Wilhelm Keitel was that he is guilty on all four accounts and sentenced to death by hanging. Keitel signed orders for the attacks on the neutral countries of Belgium and the Netherlands. He also ordered the attacks on soldiers in the East that should be met by putting to death fifty to one hundred Communists for one German soldier’s death. The judges made the appropriate sentencing for Keitel as he deserved to die for his inhumane war orders. Superior orders, even to a soldier, cannot lessen the crime when the evil doings are committed deliberately and ruthlessly. These kinds of orders Keitel singed off on were just so vicious and cold blooded. Any normal human being in their right mind would not allow for these actions to happen. Finally, Hans Frank was the third accused Nazi who used the defence that he was just following orders. Frank was appointed Chief Civil Administration Officer for occupied Polish territory during the war. Hans Frank stated during the trial, “I did not approve of the persecutions of

7 million people died because of their decision, just as a man would die if I decided to shoot him in the head.