After reading Eichmann and about the Nuremberg trials, I found Eichmann’s excuse during his trial very interesting. Like many of those who were tried in Nuremburg, Eichmann gave the excuse he was just following orders. But like many others, he was still put to death. So my question is at what point does one become responsible for the atrocities committed by his or her country?
The connection with Eichmann is simple. He continued to plan human transportation for his country even after he knew that most of these people would be put to death. But on the other end, every Nazi soldier is indirectly related to the Holocaust for they defended their country while these crimes took place.
So two major differences existed between Eichmann and the average German soldier. The first being Eichmann took a planning roll in the incident while the soldier had not. And the second being that although a soldier might have known that people were being deported, the soldier did not know their final fate.
So let’s assume Eichmann worked as a transportation expert but his knowledge of the situation was more limited and his knowledge started at where people entered they trains and ended where the exited. If he had no idea what happen after they got off and was fine with that, would his ignorance protect him from guilt or does he have a responsibility to figure out these people’s fate before he works?
Now let’s look at the other example. Had a soldier (who unlike Eichmann has no planning role) become aware of what was going on in these camps, would he then be responsible if he kept fighting for his country?
These are just two examples but there are obviously no black and white answers. Different philosophers would view the situation differently. For example, in the first hypothetical example Kant would say that Eichmann would have a perfect duty to reason what his planning led to and should have figure out that the mass exporting of people against their will cannot be universalized. Furthermore, Eichmann would have the imperfect duty to find out these people’s fate.
For the second example, Kant’s logic would state that the soldier has a perfect duty to stop fighting when the soldier finds out about the extermination camps. (Although it would probably be argued that the soldier already has a perfect duty to not fight as war cannot be universalized).
If you were in charge of deciding who to convict after Germany’s unconditional surrender whose logic would you follow?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think Eichmann had a responsibility to find out the fates those he transported, according to positive law. For example, a bus driver does not have an obligation, by positive law, to make sure that all his passengers get safely home. Once the passengers step off the bus, it is not the busdriver's responsibility anymore. Eichmann, like the busdriver, was providing a service - transportation. However, would find it hard to believe that Eichmann didn't know what was going; he surely had to have known to what cause he was contributing. This being said, I think he had an obligation, according to natural law, to do something about it. Obviously, the calculated extermination of a race is morally wrong. If you look at the situation from a business standpoint, he was just providing a service. But I feel like it's hard to separate emotion from an issue like this. Therefore, I think you have a moral obligation to try to right wrongs like this.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I think Eichmann did have an obligation to find out what was happening to the people placed onto rail cars. Firstly I don't believe that even Eichmann could not have been so dense as to not realize the fate of the people on the train cars. However even if he didn't know he still had an obligation to find out. We as human beings are responsible for the consequences of our actions and Eichmann was closer than most to the outcome of his actions in a way that the soldier at the front wasn't. He had the position and ability to discover what was going on and he should have used that position to do so. At the risk of seeming trite, when a person has greater power than most they have a greater responsibility than most towards the outcome of that greater power.
ReplyDeleteI do also believe that Eichmann would have had to know what was going to happen to the people being transported on the cars.. that being said if you look at this from an existentialist point of view, Eichmann immediately becomes responsible for the results of his actions and is choosing to will the help of killing innocent humans. However, if he really did not know anything about what was going on then of course how could he be to blame? But, if over the course of time he did begin to realize what was happening at that point he can be held responsible. The same could be said for the example about the average German soldier- they know what's going on, they know what they're doing, they may be trying to put responsibility for their actions on someone else, but they are still making their own decisions.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to respond to Rachels comment where she asks about how Eichmann could be held responsible even if he somehow didn't realize what was going on. Eichmann is still responsibile because as a person with influence and power Eichmann had a duty to find out the effects of that use of influence and power. While Eichmann wasn't a powerful figure in the government he was still more influential than a foot soldier and as a result he had a higher degree of responsibility to understand the impacts of his actions.
ReplyDelete