Nazi Nuclear Plan During Second World War In Norway: Ethical Issues
In the passage given, it briefly discusses what took place during Second World War, and how Germany was trying to develop a nuclear weapon using heavy water. The fertilizer plant that produced most of the heavy water in the world at that time was in Norway. Germany controlled that plant and was moving supplies from Norway to Germany, when British discovered Germanys plan, Norwegian resistance fighters were sent to plant explosives, although they knew innocent civilians would be traveling on the ferry, they continued their plan to sink the ferry and more or less eighteen people died.
Utilitarian would believe that the plan was practical; the risk of the few on the ferry dying was for a better cause. I agree with their theory on this situation. If the German would have succeeded in making these nuclear weapons, more innocent people would have died. The outcome saved many more people’s lives. Deontological theory believes in the duty to do right and avoid bad actions. I am not quite sure how to go with this one, technically planting explosives is a bad action but at the same time planning to create a nuclear weapon to use against other people and possibly killing so many more people is a bad action as well. I think that the Norwegians actions were justified, because they also saved lives. So I would agree with it was their duty to try and prevent that nuclear weapon from being built, the outcome was greater, yes people did die on the ferry, but more lives were saved in the end.
Moderate objectivism, follows basic concepts of Natural law, which are valid rules of action that one should generally follow, but in cases of moral conflict, can be overridden by another moral principle. So, they would think that ultimately the choices of the Norwegians could be acceptable due to moral principle. The wrong they did was outweighed by the outcome of their actions. I would agree with this theory as well, it is wrong to kill or cause pain to others, however if they are planning to kill or their actions will result in the death of many more, morally them saving lives of many more outweighs their actions.
Social contract is the moral and political theory that people decide to behave decently to minimize social disorder and create harmony. In this case as far as social contact, they would not agree, because the Norwegians were not thinking peace at the time of planting explosives on the ferry. This would be in a perfect world where politicians, government etc. would be in our best interest always. In this particular situation I do not agree. Something needed to be done in order to stop the Germans from the chaos they were about to cause, the many lives they were putting in jeopardy. The Germans were not abiding by the social contract; the Norwegians were ultimately trying to stop a tragedy.
Relativism, meaning there isn’t just one truth, different cultures or people have different believes in what moral and immoral. Relativist would accept the actions because they believe that different groups of people have the right to different opinions to what is right and what is wrong. This theory is best used in a time of war, because the Germans believed what they were doing was morally right, to the British and Norwegians, they believed that sinking that ferry was morally right, although there could have been other alternatives to stopping the Germans from what they had planned, this to the British and Norwegians was the best route to go, in order to stop what was going to happen.
Considering all the theories, the ones I can relate to the most, and understand in this situation would be utilitarian, because what the British and Norwegians thought process was practical, they believed that what they were doing was for the greater good, and more people were going to benefit from their actions. Also moderate objectivism is more understanding to the decision that they made, although it is morally wrong to kill or cause pain to people, furthermore allowing many more to die is wrong and I believe cancels out the consequences of their actions. Instincts as a human is not wanting to die, I know that it will happen at one point to everyone its inevitable, but if I am able to prevent myself and my family from dying before our time, especially in a time of war when people are purposely trying to hurt us in order to save their own lives, then I would do everything in my power to keep us alive or to protect my family. What makes their lives more valuable than ours? Relativism is the theory that makes the most sense especially in a time of war, which is what, brought everyone to that point, having a different opinion on morals and what they think is right and wrong. Both sides are going to fight or do what is necessary to keep their people safe or what they think needs to be done to win. Unfortunately, not everything can be fixed with civil conversations or compromises.
For this particular situation, I don’t agree with deontological theorist, because they believe in avoiding bad actions and it’s our duty to do right. Yes it is our duty to do right, however sometimes it can be out of our control on what right actually is. Right to some can be saving yourself and family; to what others opinions to what right is might be no retaliation. Sometimes what you believe in or what you think your duty is, others won’t always agree with, but that is what makes this world so diverse. Everyone has a different opinion to what is right and wrong.
Lastly, social contract, it would be great to be able to follow orders or rules in order to keep peace and prevent chaos. Furthermore, sometimes the political views and decisions of our government are not always in our best interest or we do not always agree with, or in other countries people do not have a say. I do not agree with always putting up a fight, if there is a way to settle things without things having to get to that point, then I am all for it, but it does not always work out that way. Of course killing is not the answer, but defending yourself, your family and your belief, to me is important.
In conclusion, in this short passage of what was done between the Norwegian, British and Germans is something that was inevitable, either a few die, who we do not know if they were a part of the Germans plan, or save thousands or millions from dying due to a nuclear weapon that you can prevent from being made. In wars, things are done that need to be done, sometimes I understand people take advantage of that exception and do things that they should not, but to sacrifice eighteen or so people for thousands or more. I think I would have done the same thing I would rather live with eighteen lives and not thousands.
