The Nazi Doctors - Essay Example

In fact, they had a task of eliminating people that were considered unfit for work, while others were sacrificed for others to live. Therefore, this period entails complications regarding rules that were altered frequently in accordance with camp commandants. Nevertheless, the paper will focus on analysing this issue based on the idea whether the famous philosophers, Aristotle, Kant, and Mill would agree with the practices in which Nazi doctors were involved. Aristotle, Kant, and Mill do not agree with practices conducted by the Nazi doctors through the agreement of their medical professional.

In this case, they were chosen to take role of concentrating camp doctor and saving lives of numerous people while making decision regarding condemning others to death. On the other hand, both Aristotle and Mill would support the argument that the Nazi were not in a position to decline the offer of position offered by the Nazi regime. In fact, the doctors were bound to admit these offers as a way of saving their own lives. Others agreed with the notion that they would increase the possibility of benefiting numerous people.

As a utilitarian, Mill has a conviction that actions are considered right based on their aspect of promoting happiness while wrong leads to grief or unhappiness ((Mill, 2010). Therefore, causing death for innocent people created a difficulty, thus failing to comply with the Greatest Happiness Principle. Moreover, Aristotle sought to offer a better notion to support this idea, whereby indicating that wise people are able to bare kinds of fortune in a seemly way thereby acting in an aristocrats way in various situations (Amemiya, 2007).

However, Kant disagrees with the idea of doctors agreeing to the mandates given to them by the Nazi regime. This is due to his maxims conviction, which is universalized without inconsistency (Cahn, 2012), whereby if it prevailed; the doctors would not have had a chance to make their Faustian bargain. Moreover, Kant (1964) argued that a man’s dignity is lost by lying; thus, decisions, which concern determining, people who will live or die does not require to be accommodated in the law or universalized maxims.

In this case, the three philosophers were advocating for a world that facilitated coexistence whereby every human being lives without being subjected to death that would be caused by another human being. Difficult choices regarding establishment of a substantial number of choices was made by Aristotle and Mill, whereby they stood for consequentialism. In this case, there was not chance for Kant to establish a philosophical justification of the murder for some people for the sake of saving others.

In fact, he advocates for deontological ethics that focuses on people’s intentions (Honderich, 2005). Therefore, Kant’s convictions do not support the killings perpetrated by Nazi doctors despite the idea of saving other people’s lives. Furthermore, this is an attitude, which can be supported through a verse in the Bible at Matthew 7:12, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them.” Concerning the choice of whether I would support the actions of Nazi doctors or the offer that was presented to them by the Nazi regime is a problem that required deep thinking.

However, the analysis on the three philoso