2006-10-12 15:43:21 · 2 answers · asked by Tony K 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Anyone with a brain would rule: B.S. It's NOT a defense-it's an excuse. The excuse that they would kill every member of my family and plow under my Village is a pretty good one - self-preservation is probably the strongest emotion/feeling people have. If it was a choice between my son and the kid next door - I'd give up the kid next door. If it was a choice between my son and me - shoot me - please make it quick and I would prefer not to be tortured.
2006-10-12 15:54:20 · answer #1 · answered by 34th B.G. - USAAF 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is the third question I see on Nuremberg Trials today, and I am curious!
That said, to answer your question, an ethical relativist will have to accept the defense and rule not guilty. To a relativist there are no absolutes and has to consider the situations and the circumstances. Hence I believe he will rule not guilty.
I would also like to know your answer to the question.
2006-10-12 16:37:24 · answer #2 · answered by Olga 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋