CHAPTER III

APPLYING ETHICAL THEORIES TO NAZISM

Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) is widely considered one of the most influential philosophers in recorded history.

His writings have created an entire discipline of published literature in philosophy, ethics, and more.

While he lived and died thousands of years before Josef Mengele, Aristotle's influence still permeated German social ethics of the early twentieth century.

By analyzing the philosophy behind the social changes in Nazi Germany, I hope to answer the question on whether it is ethical to use Mengele's research.

Aristotle does not specifically address the ethical question of state sponsored genocide in his writings.

He does, however, address certain behaviors perpetrated by the Nazis in their push for European supremacy.

Scholars and modern philosophers routinely attempt to apply Aristotle's philosophy to World War II, and a prominent scholar, Lloyd Gerson, argues that the largest obstacle Aristotle would see with state sponsored genocide is that he does not believe nation states should operate as moral entities.

The mistake is to suppose that nations are moral agents.

If one supposes this, then whatever theory of morality one wishes to defend, one will assume that that theory applies to nations.

Thus, if one, say, defends a version of utilitarianism or some sort of deontological theory, one will then go on to claim its applicability to nations, treating them as if they were moral agents.

Therefore, states should not intervene in the affairs of other nation-states, such as occupying Austria or invading Poland, even if the government believes the intentions to be righteous.

Gerson believes that Aristotle would argue Germany should not concern itself with the ethnic affairs in Europe or with being an Aryan bulwark in the racial struggle.

Gerson concludes that Aristotle would approve of a nation acting as a legitimate international agent as long as the nation does not violently impose its moral beliefs on its neighbors.

Subsequently, this author believes Aristotle would argue that the Final Solution should never have been authorized, as Nazi Germany had no moral right to forcefully evacuate Jews from sovereign European countries.

Furthermore, a contemporary of Gerson's, author Fred Miller, believes that Aristotle would have disapproved of German expansion under the guise of finding adequate living space for ethnic Germans.

This lebensraum initiative included acts of violence and mayhem against Germany's neighbors.

Aristotle writes that "--- the political life entails the just treatment of foreigners and fellow citizens alike"

Predating the later creation of concentration and forced labor camps, early measures enacted by Hitler's government violated several sovereign nations' autonomy and are thusly unethical.

However, that is not to say Aristotle is opposed to political change.

Allowing for the rise of the Nazi Party, Aristotle would argue that if a system is unjust or unfair, it is morally appropriate to amend a government's constitution.

"He [Aristotle] makes it clear that a subjective feeling of injustice is sufficient as a cause of dissidence ---"

The inequities of the Treaty of Versailles and the financial ruin suffered under the Weimar Republic were seen as adequate justification for the Nazi ascension to power.

Aristotle could have agreed that the dire financial and social depression in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s were substantial motivations for political change.

This is not to say that Aristotle would have supported Nazism, simply that political change was warranted because the Weimar Republic was failing.

When analyzing Josef Mengele through the prism of ethical theories, one must determine why Utilitarianism is ideal.

There exist many different theories which could be utilized to determine whether one's behavior is ethical.

These include the Golden Rule, which states that you must do unto others only as you would have them do unto you.

Kant's Categorical Imperative states that you should only act in a way that you would be willing to see become universal law.

The Revelation Ethic of the modern philosophical era encourages one to pray, to whichever god the individual believes in, for support and guidance.

However, for Mengele's purpose, the Utilitarian Principle is preferable:

Archie B Carroll and Ann K Buckholtz, Business & Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, 7th Edition (Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning, 2008), 304. 5 Ibid., 294.

The principle of utilitarianism is, therefore, a consequential principle, or as stated earlier a teleological principle.

In its simplest form, utilitarianism asserts that "we should always act so as to produce the greatest ratio of good to evil for everyone" --- one should take that course of action that represents the "greatest good for the greatest number"

Utilitarianism is the ethic by which the Nazi Party justified the Holocaust.
Therefore, it is justice to use this same principle in analyzing Josef Mengele.

As seen in the previous chapter, Mengele was likely aware of his era's predominant professional ethics.

With the intense and extensive education he received in Germany, he very likely would also have been cognizant of the popular ethical theories and how they related to the rising Nazi party.

Opponents of Nazi party politics would have argued that the National Socilaist politics were in stark violation of Utilitarianism.

However, as seen previously, the Nazis skewed Utilitarianism so that it actually supported the party's aims and means.

Thereafter, once in power, the Nazis began a secret process of eliminating those considered unfit to live.

A program was enacted to systematically murder the mentally handicapped and physically deformed.

There is an argument within Utilitarianism which supports eliminating the weaker societal elements.

This, in part, states:

(1) The morally right thing to do, on any occasion, is whatever would bring about the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness.

(2) On at least some occasions, the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness may be brought about by mercy killing.

(3) Therefore, on at least some occasions, mercy killing may be morally right.

It is this last Utilitarian point, stating that mercy killings may actually be morally right, which could have encouraged the Nazis to pursue systematic liquidation.

However, it is this author's belief that the definition of "mercy killing" in this passage refers to ending the life of someone gravely suffering from a terminal disease or condition, and not to exterminating the Jews, the handicapped, and others under the political motivations of the Third Reich.

Therefore, any justification of euthanasia or "mercy killing" by means of Utilitarianism is erroneous.

The Nazis began to integrate decades of Social Darwinist writings into their legislation and Hitler, as the party leader, began to pass measures aimed at curtailing the liberties of the sub-species, Jews and Gypsies especially, because he believed each to be an unacceptable existence.

"He [Hitler] considered them inferior beings that before the advent of Christian and humanitarian ethics would have died out in the struggle for existence"

Hitler even signed a document freeing physicians from legal prosecution if they committed mercy killings, even though this act was still technically illegal under German law.

It is possible to refute Utilitarianism by means of an alternative ethical theory.

The theory of Professional Ethics states that one "--- should only do that which can be explained before a committee of your peers"

"In this case, the coworkers of the Nazi Party happen to be Mengele's peers. These colleagues supported his research regardless of its violent human rights violations.

Through the cold eyes of German physicians, the utilization of murder was not ideal, but the results were necessary to establish a greater Germany.

By applying this principle, one could argue that it was ethical for the German government to support Mengele's research, and his behavior was likely politically supported.

However, it is the opinion of this author that the application of Utilitarianism must include Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies among the "greater good" and therefore is more relevant than the Professional Ethics theory.

The German Social Darwinist ideal of "survival of the fittest" increasingly gained popularity and combined with other ethical doctrines, such as those which state that in "--- assessing consequences, the only that thing that matters is the amount of happiness or unhappiness that is caused. Everything else is irrelevant. Thus right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness"

The question of Jewish happiness was not a matter for German ethicists or leaders.

Viewed as subhuman, the only concern was for those considered Aryan or "good"

The struggle for Aryan supremacy was a fight based on philosophical beliefs:

As Darwinists consistently taught, the struggle for existence necessarily resulted in mass death for the "unfit", which caused evolutionary progress.

Hitler --- along with some other Darwinists --- believed that the right to life only belonged to the "fit", which they interpreted as the healthy and strong.

Hitler blamed Christian ideals for the social aversion to murdering the weaker elements of society.

He blamed western philosophy for engendering a belief in "right to life" for all human beings.

Hitler argued that, as within the animal kingdom, there exists a hierarchy amongst humans and that some are more important to preserve than others.

"Here Hitler clearly expressed his belief that the evolutionary struggle should eliminate all humanitarian considerations, including the conception of a natural right to life for all humans, which was a fundamental element of Western human rights philosophy"

This changing philosophy took the bite out of killing, it took the guilt out of beating an elderly individual, and it took the stigma away from being violent.

As it was all part and parcel of the evolutionary process, it became acceptable and honorable.

Backed by Nazi dogma, killing became accepted normative behavior.

It became unacceptable to allow for the degenerate to live and unthinkable to allow the degenerate to procreate.

"No condition that would possibly present a danger of degeneracy was to be overlooked, and it was considered a patriotic duty of all Germans to watch over the health and purity of their offspring"

German scientists and intellectuals began to produce literature which promoted this belief and promulgated the acceptability of murder.

While Josef Mengele's doctoral work did not show any overt sense of racism, it mirrored the belief that heredity alone determine whether one was fit to live.

Without any evidence, scientists concluded that human differences were hereditary and unalterable, and in doing so, they "precluded redemption" because they imposed "the additional burden of intrinsic inferiority upon despised groups"

While Kant would argue that each person's rights are paramount and should not be violated, the German Nazi government and medical elite worked in tandem to create a society in which murder was more than just acceptable, it was philosophically just.

This is the society in which Josef Mengele was educated and encouraged to make his mark on history.

Subsequently, the question remains on how to utilize the data amassed by the Nazis in research conducted in the present day.

Understandably, this is an uneasy subject, but the ethical arguments are available to form a definitive conclusion.

The first argument in support of using Mengele's research states that while the means by which his research was obtained was wholly deplorable, the information still exists and therefore should be used to increase the overall health.

Furthermore, Stephen G. Post writes that the Nazi data "--- can be used so long as the purpose is an important one, and the data is presented with a clear moral denunciation of how it was obtained"

Perhaps the opinions of ethical theorists, survivors, and historians would differ greatly if the research unlocked the cure for a major disease.

For example, if the Nazis discovered a cure for cancer, then in that case it would be ethically responsible to utilize the data.

However, the Nazis did not discover a cure for cancer and so this argument is irrelevant.

To accuse a present day physician of condoning Mengele's research and as complicit in the Nazi holocaust due to the use of data is unfair and inaccurate.

It is "--- entirely unreasonable to suggest that by using Nazi data, scientists become party to the evil of Dachau. By analogy, a physician who makes use of the body of a murder victim or of an aborted fetus is neither a murderer nor an abortionist"

Researchers who would utilize the Nazi research do not necessarily agree with the methods by which the information was obtained.

However unfortunate the circumstance, the information still exists and should be available for use if it will better the collective health of humans.

Conversely, ethics will argue that the research was stolen and unethical in its original nature, and therefore should be banished from use.

"The data --- should be condemned to oblivion and never used by science, although the descriptions of the experiments can be republished as a reminder of the Nazi horror"

Because of the depravity with which the research was obtained, any use of that data would be inflicting more injury and offense to every victim of the Holocaust.

Concentration camp survivors have even expressed opinions on the matter.

Rose Kaplovitz, a camp survivor, states that "--- she did not want to see the data used because no one should be indebted to the Nazis"

This is not to say that the medical complicity in the Holocaust should be ignored; only that the research should not be used as a source in the present day.

Furthermore, the Nazi data "--- has been stolen through forced extraction from the bodies of the Jews, so that if anyone should control the data's use, it should be the Jews themselves. They have the right, then, to insist that the data not be used, because the data was pillaged from their ravaged bodies alone"

There has been no documentation of Jewish groups expressing favor of utilizing the Nazi research.

As a representation of the ethnicity most gravely affected by the concentration camps, this denouncement must be acknowledged and heeded.

The evolving political, professional, and deontological structure of Germany after World War I allowed for the creation of camps such as Auschwitz.

Furthermore, institutionalized murder was accepted, facilitated, and promoted by the medical community.

Moreover, the entire philosophical subject of Social Darwinism was "--- conspicuously absent from British and German deontological literature until the end of World War II"

Therefore, any international pressure to halt this murderous new system was nonexistent.

Thankfully, following World War II, the Allied Powers were determined to prevent another medically-induced Holocaust from reoccurring.

Subsequently, a system of statutes collectively called the Nuremberg Code was passed shortly after the end of the war.

It details a strict system of medical assurances which are concrete and leave nothing open to interpretation or abuse.

It states, in part:

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have the legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force/fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by; which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his heath or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who, initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicals also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only be scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

As difficult as it is to give credit to Josef Mengele, his atrocious behavior helped directly lead to the world of today, where patient rights are protected and abuse is limited.

In conclusion, most ethical theories, when applied to Josef Mengele, would disapprove of the means by which he amassed his data.

Furthermore, these theories, combined with survivor statements, arrive at a single conclusion; Josef Mengele's research was conducted unethically.

Even with taking Stephen Post's point of view into consideration, this author believes that the utilization of Nazi research in modern medical trials would be entirely unethical due to the nature by which the research was conducted.