The Influence on World War 2

Abstract

This paper is based on the ethical terms of coercion and the conflict of loyalties, and how these applied to the influences it had on the participants of the Holocaust, specifically on World War II, when Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. The focus of this paper will merely be on the Stanley Milgram experiment that tested the ethics of us as humans in his experiment to help him come up with an explanation of why the Nazi Criminals continued to go against their own good will due to the orders, and threats of their supreme leader Adolf Hitler. The origins of coercion and the conflict of loyalties are examined and applied to the relations it had with the ethics of the experiment and Nazi war participants. Deception can also be applied to the morality of the Milgram experiment and analysis of the Nazi soldier’s actions. These terms and concept will be used to assist in the comprehension of this paper, which inherently consists of acts made by people that portray a relation to the same subculture that we deal with today.

When the conflict of loyalties are mentioned in this paper it will not refer to a relationship of two significant others as it would be in a general assumption to the definition of the term but it will merely focus on the relationship the Nazi soldiers had with their authorities in the dark age of world war two, in the invasion of Poland and how the ethics of these “criminals” were tested in the later years by scientist, Stanley Milgram. According to Lecture notes, to gain the knowledge and understanding of a conflict of loyalties, a loyalty is first defined as an obligation or duty to an organization, profession, and or principle, including ourselves. To serve the interests of a certain individual is to be loyal, to actively undermine the interests of a person, organization, profession or principle is to be disloyal. A conflict is defined as a problem or an incompatible disagreement, according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. It is important to define the term Conflict of Loyalties as a behavior guideline, and the complexities in calculating the outcomes of the actions by participants in the Milgram experiment and behaviors behind the Nazi war.

When in the situation of the Nazi soldiers where they had no choice but to obey the laws and orders of their supreme we come to the conclusion of a conflict of loyalties. In this act it also must involve Coercion. This term is now being introduced in this paper as also one of the key terms that played a role in the influence of behavior in these notions of the proposed unethical acts. The unethical acts mentioned will be further examined later in the paper, therefore we must grasp a solid understanding first of the communication terms and concept that applies to it.

There are many ways of defining coercion depending on the subject of the situation. The term coercion has been adapted from the legal definition of the term where it is defined as “The practice of persuading someone to do something by threats- To restrain or dominate by force” (Merriam-Webster’s) On a legal stand point, an example of coercion would be, that a confession was coerced from the suspect by police. In appliance of the communications perspective coercion is applied a little differently as explained later in the paper, but has its same definition as it was adapted from the legal perspective.

Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential authors and political philosophers of the 20th century. Arendt’s Eichman in Jerusalem addressed similar issues of coercion and accountability by also naming the many concepts that relate to coercion and how they all play a role in the behavioral side of the ethics in this situation, in its discussion it stated:

Nazi officers defended themselves by saying they had been commanded by their superiors to commit the heinous acts for which they were standing trial (Arendt, 1994). Hence, the concept of coercion is typically studied alongside concepts of behaviorism, persuasion, influence, legitimization, authority, responsibility, and duress.

Another form of coercion is Deception. To deceive is also referred to as lying to someone. When a person does that it restricts the receiver of the liar’s options, and they don’t know their options are being restricted. This is a form of coercion because it forces someone into making a decision that is not warranted or is unnecessary, when they could have made a better, and more accurate decision if they would have received the correct information. (Class Lecture)

The involvement deception has in this paper is within the Milgram experiment, and how the experiment was used to describe the intentions of behavior during the Holocaust. The motive of this term was used to enlighten the conflict of loyalties in this particular situation. Deception can be defined in various ways by many different people. Self-deception is another form of deception that too is a link into examining the nature of deception into deeper definition. Many worries concerning self-deception stem from the self-deceiver’s distorted view of the world and of himself or herself. Some philosophers believe that the self-deceiver’s warped perception of things may enable or encourage him or her to act in immoral ways. Other philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, fear that the “ill of untruthfulness” involved in cases of self-deception may spread throughout the self-deceiver’s life and interpersonal relationships. These concerns about truth and perception point to further questions regarding the autonomy of the self-deceiver.

James Mahon, a professor of philosophy at the Washington & Lee University School of Law wrote a book, The Truth about Kant on Lies and David Sussman, a professor of philosophy from the university of Illinois also wrote a book, On the Supposed Duty of Truthfulness: Kant on Lying in Self-Defense are both contributions to the on-going and fertile investigation of Kant's apparently quite uncompromising regard for the immorality of lying in his moral philosophy. Mahon develops, in very great detail, Kant's distinctions between a lie in the ethical sense, in the juristic sense, and in the sense of right. These distinctions, along with close attention to what Kant has to say about "white lies" and lies to oneself (pg. 207), go some distance, Mahon argues, to mitigating the alleged repugnance of Kant's claims. In a recent article by James Mahon, A Definition of Deceiving, he also states that there is “no universally agreed upon definition of deceiving.” (pg. 181)

Philosophers agree that ‘deceive’ is a success or an achievement