AskHistorians

Everything Rudolf did, he did not out of viciousness, but in the name of the categorical imperative (the central tenet of Kant's moral philosophy) of duty, of loyalty to his commander, in submission to orders, out of respect for the State. In short, as a 'man of duty'; it is precisely for this behavior that he is monstrous. (Robert Merle, 27 April 1972, preface to the book.)

Yeesh, this describes every loyalist that continues going into work on a daily basis, pretending like their job terrorizing children and families is a duty that must be done. Somewhere inside of themselves they probably know this is wrong, but they're all waiting for somebody else to be the one to refuse to go forward with the orders being given. There are definitely some sadistic assholes who are gleefully carrying this shit out, but they all keep their faces covered bc they know they should be ashamed.

I kind of wonder if thinking about it as simply a question of morality actually makes it easier for some people to rationalize their behavior. It is definitely immoral, but in some ways, only looking at it as moral vs immoral almost leaves too much room for debate, diffusion of responsibility, and rationalizing actions in the specific context.

I was reading about the Southern Strategy earlier and Barry Goldwater's refusal to support the Civil Rights Act, despite having a fairly progressive reputation and voting record on racial issues at the time. His argument to oppose it really wasn't because he supported racial discrimination, but due to his libertarian beliefs that the federal government should never enforce "morality" laws on to states.

I would say a town not allowing risque businesses to advertise, or serve alcohol, are examples of morality laws. Racial discrimination is immoral behavior, but established laws allowing and often enforcing inequality weren't just immoral, they were unjust. The same applies to the camps. Morality is more of a spectrum while injustice doesn't leave much of a gray area. The entire premise of a segregated society, or a race/ethnicity based prison camp is immoral. But an individual within both immoral contexts has to acknowledge that an injustice being carried out or stopped, relies on their actions (following orders, using a position of power to support rights for others) or inactions (refusal to follow orders, refusal to use your position to help others obtain equality and the same rights that you expect for yourself).

Recognition of injustice should have made them feel morally obligated to do something to stop it. Failure to recognize these contexts as unjust for others who were at their mercy, kind of negates any argument that the context of their actions should be considered when making a judgment since neither did what they did out of malice. The phrase "as a 'man of duty'; it is precisely for this behavior that he is monstrous," applies to both men, and to anyone who refuses to acknowledge the power of their own choice within a given context.

The people at your mercy have no say. You do. Regardless of if you believe that what you do will actually succeed or make a difference, defaulting to being a cog in an unjust machine is itself an act of injustice to others.

This can also be applied to weaponized AI being used to commit murder of innocent civilians. There is a long chain of command between Peter Thiel/Alex Karp selling an AI weapon to the Israeli army, and the weapon actually being used to commit murder. Diffusion of responsibility helps them distance themselves from any perceived culpability. Did they not know what they created would be used unjustly, or, did they simply not view mass civilian casualties as unjust? I hope they, along with many others in the current administration, will be forced to provide an answer to these kinds of questions under oath someday.