Upon examination, the dissectioning of the philosophical spectra of Nazi Germany during the Second World War holds fundamental discrepancy of core beliefs in the ruling of the social construct. With specification, the rise in German Nazism posed challenges in keeping previously enlightened philosophical prospects; the idea of a superior race scrutinizes the condemning of the inferior race by means of exercising the belief of utilitarianism, and the social discourse valued in the predetermined designation of the extinction and eradication of an entire race.
This deviation poses a critical synopsis on the questioning of the said proposition in such that the previously universally dominant Kantian principles regarding the issue of humanitarian ethics are of negligible signification in this case. While in at hand Nazi Germany resolutes in containing a radical nationalistic approach on the social beneficiary good, the violation of the fundamental ethics in human experimentation portray the social manipulations of philosophical postulates.
In distinct appropriations, Nazi Germany institutes a visionary belief that the existence of the superior race would promote the improvement of the nation both economically and socially, justifying this status by means of biological predetermination. The idea of utilitarianism stifles in the moral attributions of society itself.
The belief that a social composition should prioritize and emphasize the usefulness of one’s individuality prompts the prosecution of those who are considered socially useless as morally justified: “The Nazi biomedical vision included the belief that certain ‘race’ are superior to others; that scientific management could solve social problems… to improve the genetic composition of their citizenry in hope of creating a society in which individuals would be economically useful” (Bekier). Seemingly, Nazi Germany perceived the prospect of utilitarianism to have the sense of good moral judgement.
This manipulation of moral values detain the functions of the social construct in agreement to a perceived goal, even if the violations of human existentialism are of prominent distinction. In addition, Nazi Germany believed that, biologically, certain types of humans contained infrequencies in the cellular genome. For this cause, the superior race are in obligation to eliminate certain genetic traits and override the natural discourse of evolutionary biology in order to pertain in social equity: In the case of plants and animals cultivated by humans, care is taken to weed out the less valuable…
Should we not do the same with people?… [If not,] That would mean the self-dissolution and destruction of the whole people, for a people that suffers from hereditary illnesses is not able to maintain itself in the great battle of selection between the people! (Bekier) For this juxtapositioning, utilitarian principles are then considered to have a sense of validity, in criterium that society can be controlled through the determination of those judged by their usefulness to society, and only those who are biologically fit can advance in the social discourse without impediment.
Furthering with the ideas of utilitarianism, Nazi Germany sought for the social good in the expanding the very philosophy of utilitarianism itself: “If social good was to be gained without securing agreement, that was all that matters and was viewed as morally legitimate” (Bekier). In other words, the derivative for the social advancement in Nazi Germany is necessarily approved without the approval of the targeted subjects.
If the better well-being of the social construct can be harnessed from the required indoctrinations, even by the manner of violating one’s natural rights of self-approving existentialism, then the moral acquisition for that indoctrination is, by law, legitimate, This type of cogitation arises in the problematic consideration for the targeted subjects in scientific researching. Unlike Nazi Germany’s utilitarianist ordination, the Kantian principles socially argued that the regard for the people’s individual rights of construct are in designation of highest priority in medical experimentation.
That is, medical experimentation in justification for the betterment of society cannot disregard the subject’s right of consent and agreement. Other sources for this necessity are to be profounded upon before the consideration for ‘necessary’ human medical experimentation. Bekier states, “According to Kantian principles (the categorical imperative), people cannot be forced to accept treatment or be subject to medical experimentation for the good of the majority’.
The Kantian view states that people should always be treated as ‘ends’, and never as ‘means’ only. ” However, Nazi Germany considered the subjects that were induced to scientific research were impartial to the proposed acquisitioning of the said philosophies. For instance, “In Nazi Germany, Jews were, through a series of laws known as the Nuremberg Laws, methodically excluded from society, becoming non-persons” (Bekier), and”… a society cannot use a part of the population as slaves, as this treats them merely as means…
That option was never a consideration, as the prisoners were considered ‘less than human” (Bekier), the disregard for the acknowledgement of the subject’s existence as a human being provokes the disbelief in Kantian ethics. This, however, was refuted by Nazi Germany to regard the targeted subjects as non-human entities. By doing so, it is believed that the Kantian ethics among medical experimentation are of invalidity in its concept. Moral legitimacy is then served as true because the dealing of the targeted subjects are considered, by law, as nonhuman beings and therefore, the Kantian principles were not violated.
Though Nazi Germany shows the precept in their propositioning of human experimentation justified by utilitarian principles and their inclusion for the definition of their moral values based upon social usefulness and biological dissonance, the ethical grounds for their actions are ultimately challenged relevantly to the basis of accessing the data derived from these studies and moreso to how this access is in violation to these grounds. Baruch C. Cohen argues how “Data’ is merely an impersonal recordation of words and numbers… unattached to the tortured or their pain. In context, Cohen offers the ignorance that would be generated from using the data acquired from unethical treatment against the Jews in Nazi Germany’s medical experimentation.
Isabel Wilkerson, a reporter from The New York Times, reports from Eva Kor, a Holocaust victim from Josef Mengele’s experimentation on twins, that data, arguably, cannot withhold the ethical violations in the acquirement of the information: “It’s not data, it’s a history of atrocities,’ said Eva Kor, a Holocaust victim, who was among the 1,500 pairs of twins who were the subjects of experiments by Nazi physician Josef Mengele. In other words, if the data that were recorded from medical experimentation, justified by the disregard for the core fundamentals of human ethics in medical researching, are then initiated without this precept, then is the very act of using this information justifiable by any means of its ethical validity and if so, does the information hold scientific validity ? “[Dr. A. Buchanan] believes that bad ethics and bad science are inextricably linked together.
He found that the human experiments that were ethically sound were also scientifically sound. Therefore, he concluded that since the Nazi experiments were unethical, they were, by equation, scientifically invalid” (Cohen). The unfolding of this equation supports the illegitimacy of Nazi experimentation and the data that were derived from it. Dr. A. Buchanan concluded the regards to the consideration of the data from unethical human experimentation as scientifically invalid and holds no excuse to execute this usage of data.
On the contrary, Bekier argues the usage of this data only at extents to where it shows great importance to the well-being of humanity, while also acknowledging the ethical violations of the derived data: “When the value of the Nazi data is of great value to humanity, then the morally appropriate policy would be to utilize the data, while explicitly condemning the atrocities… To further justify its use, the scientific validity of the experiment must be clear; there must be no other alternative source from which to gain that information and the capacity to save lives must be evident.
To elaborate, Bekier compromises in the moral applications regarding to the data from Nazi Germany’s medical experimentation. Only when there is an identifiable benefit to all of mankind can this data be used, in at the same moment to which the ethical condemnment is ritually justified. Not only this proposition coordinates in the sense of moral hypocrisy, but the contrasting ramifications between the permissible spectrum and the deprecation of such violations ultimately defeats in the colligative discourse of instability.
While in at hand Nazi Germany’s background in the idea of utilitarianism fits closely towards the ethics of human-medical experimentation, the morally induced by such events should be held in close attentiveness to its moral and scientific legitimacy. Conclusively, Nazi Germany proposed and challenged the pre-existing ethical values in regard to medical experimentation on human subjects Accordingly, Nazi Germany’s ideologies of utilitarianism defined their social discourse and the actions of the construct as morally justified, in so as long as the greatest benefit of reap are proposed to the greatest number of individuals.
This, however, stands in the biological spectrum of racial domination, indoctrinating a social construct based upon one’s usefulness in society, and those that are not fit are deemed to cease in existence in humanity’s perception. Even so, the ethical grounds surrounding this ideology and the actions portrayed in the Nazi Germany medical experimentations are questioned for its scientific validity and, in sense, its ethical validity. One could argue that the data gained from Nazi Germany’s medical experimentation are in violation of Kantian ethics and therefore, scientifically illegitimate.
In contrast, the data should only be used when no other source or applications could be harnessed and if so, the acknowledgement of the data’s atrocities should be made prominent. In turn, this arises in the ultimatum of moral hypocrisy, where the violations of the standard ethics should be made into consideration, but should also be validated into a permissive participle. These aspects of the socio-moral discourses profounds in the eternal questioning of achievable ethics and standing moral values that are considered coherently a mutual reality.