Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-hxdxx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T18:44:59.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response to “Dubious Premises— Evil Conclusions: Moral Reasoning at the Nuremberg Trials” by Edmund D. Pellegrino and David C. Thomasma (CQ Vol 9, No 2)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2001

Michael L. Gross
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science at the University of Haifa, Israel
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Because we are often nagged by the thought that we might not have behaved any differently than those good citizens whose respect for the law and fear of punishment led them to support the Nazi regime, we are fascinated with the behavior of ordinary Germans. Careful to first strip away the pathological explanations of German behavior, Pellegrino and Thomasma ask simply whether ordinary Germans could have reasoned and, by implication, acted differently. Although their affirmative answer is consistent with the activism we have all come to demand of the Germans, it is not clear whether we, ourselves, can lay full claim to the moral high ground.

Type
RESPONSES AND DIALOGUE
Copyright
© 2001 Cambridge University Press