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) [Book Review]

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (1):99-102 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,072

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Edmund D. Pellegrino on the future of bioethics. Interview by David C Thomasma.E. D. Pellegrino - 1996 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (4):373-375.
Remembering David Thomasma.Tom Koch - 2003 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 12 (2):187-191.
Beneficence in Trust.Erich H. Loewy - 1989 - Hastings Center Report 19 (1):42-43.
Morals without Faith.W. D. Falk - 1944 - Philosophy 19 (72):3 - 18.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
41 (#547,126)

6 months
14 (#230,988)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Michael Gross
University of Haifa

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references