Nuremberg Defense in Ethics - Research Paper Example

? Ethics Lecturer: Ethics The so-called Nuremberg defense is a legal poly whereby the defendant claims that he or she is performing his or her duties by only following orders from the higher authorities. This term was used by Nazi war criminal at the Nuremberg war trials following the Second World War arguing that they should not be held responsible for their crimes. This is because they were carrying out their roles following the orders from their superiors according to the existing laws and regulations of the state. The so called Nuremberg defense was rejected but the tribunal judges who argued that the term Nuremberg principle laid by the United National General Assembly Resolution still required personal responsibility despite the laws that a given nation could affirm. Since then, the term of Nuremberg defense has been commonly utilized and it has been applied in many places whenever someone attempts to get away with something by arguing that he or she is performing his or her tasks by only following orders. The so called Nuremberg defense influenced the decision of clarifying the APA ethics code because it conflicted with the law, military order and other varied regulations. The APA ethics codes clarify the so called Nuremberg defense by employing effective policies and procedures that would successfully meet the challenges of these complex issues. For instance, APA abandoned its long held Nuremberg ethic after the Nuremberg trials following the Second World War, the Nazi defendants attempted to defend themselves from the crime issues that they commuted by claiming that they were not responsible for their acts since they were only following the law or orders from the above authorities. Therefore, the judges rejected the fallacy of this defense by affirming to the Nuremberg Ethic that people cannot choose to violate their fundamental ethical responsibilities and then avoid accountability by blaming laws, orders and regulations or authorities. This contributed to varied changes; thus the APA adopted a revised ethics code that departed from the Nuremberg Ethic in August 2002 (American Psychological Association, 2003). The new code states that whenever the ethic responsibilities conflict with the authority of the state, it is vital to adhere to the requirements of laws, or orders or other governing legal authorities. Therefore, the new verbiage in the 2010 Ethics Code enhanced the APA Council of Representatives’ resolution of 2007 and the referendum based policy change of 2008 focused on the topic of human rights protection. The step of voting to approve the ethic codes that abandoned the Nuremberg Ethic was influenced by the conflicts between ethics and law but this did not have any connection whatsoever with the event of 9/11 attack. The research indicates that it is complex to understand the ethical reasoning that the only way of advancing the ethics code in other ways was to discard the APA’s historical commitments to the Nuremberg Ethic (Canter, Bennett, Jones and Nagy, 1996). The new 2010 version of Nuremberg Ethic was written mainly in response to conflicts regarding privacy emerging from court issues. The APA Council of Representatives voted to ethics codes in order to make changes to the ethics codes that involved abandoning the Nuremberg Ethic simply to remedy perceived problems regarding confidentiality that seemed to represent a solution remarkably mismatched to the state problems especially when other remedies were available. The APA Rights Council in 2010 adopted a resolution on human rights because they wanted to make changes to the Nuremberg defense. This was in response to the possibility of performing duties following orders from the above authorities and the defenses were viewed as a violation to the human rights based on the current language of its codes of ethics. The APA endorsed and promoted section 1.02 as its official ethical policy but criticism came from varied source arguing that APA focused on the relaxation of its ethics codes to offer defense for psychologists. This made the APA Council of Representatives to modify section 1.02 of its ethics rules and the psychologists were free to disregard the requirements of applicable ethics guidelines and could adhere to the law and regulation, as well as, other governing legal authority requirements. Moreover, the APA Council of Representatives has venerable policy against any involvement by psychologist in any torture acts, cruel or inhuman punishments (Bersoff, 2008). The 2007 council resolution reaffirmed that there are no exceptional circumstances whatsoever whether it is a threat of war, political instability within the state or any other public emergence issues that may be invoked as justification for torture, cruel of inhuman punishments including the invocation of order, laws and regulations (British Psychological Society, 2009). This policy was further expanded in the beginning of 2009 on a referendum that was adopted by the Council of Representatives arguing that the psychologists could not work in settings where an individual is held outside or in violation of the international law unless they are working directly for the independent third party to protect human rights. The 2010 APA version of the Ethics Code differs significantly from the 2002 version because the 2010 version is reasonably, appropriate and potentially effective. This is because it allows professional judgment on the part of psychologists and also it eliminates injustice or inequality that might occur (American Psychological Association, 2003). It also guards against a set of strict rules that might be obsolete faster and ensures that applicability across the extensive range of psychologists does not clash with the state laws. The 2001 version Ethics Code is reasonable meaning that the professional judgment of psychologists engaged in similar activities in similar circumstances given the knowledge that the psychologists had during the time when the 2002 version of Ethics Code were implemented (American Psychological Association, 2003). The 2002 version was amended by the APA Council of Representatives; thus it gave way to a new 2010 version. The later version is effective because it takes into considerations human rights and requires an individual to be responsible for his or her actions and take into considerations ethical aspects. The 2010 was also amended; thus ethical standards were set forth to enforceable rules for conducts as psychologists and most of the ethical standards were written broadly in order to enable psychologists apply them effectively in varied roles. References American Psychological Association (January 01, 2003). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Ethical Conflicts in Psychology. Bersoff, D. (Ed.) (2008). Ethical Conflicts In Psychology (4th edn).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. British Psychological Society. Ethics Committee. (2009). Code of ethics and conduct: Guidance. The British Psychological Society. Canter, M., Bennett, B., Jones, S. & Nagy, T. (1996). Ethics for psychologists: A Commentary On The APA Ethics Code. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pope, K. S. (April 27, 2011). Psychologists and Detainee Interrogations: Key Decisions, Opportunities Lost, and Lessons Learned. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 1, 459-481. Read More