This is what I don't understand about the Nuremburger trials. When committing a crime under duress/coercion the coercer is the one considered morally responsible for the outcome. So the "just following orders" excuse should hold up if you were coerced. Now if you still had a choice in the matter or your job was threatened than "just following orders" would not be an excuse.
You have to prove coercion. Did they threaten your life or was that a gross assumption. Did you take any and all opportunities to do the right thing or not and so on.
This is what I don't understand about the Nuremburger trials. When committing a crime under duress/coercion the coercer is the one considered morally responsible for the outcome. So the "just following orders" excuse should hold up if you were coerced. Now if you still had a choice in the matter or your job was threatened than "just following orders" would not be an excuse.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding Nuremberg.
You have to prove coercion. Did they threaten your life or was that a gross assumption. Did you take any and all opportunities to do the right thing or not and so on.
Yeah I mean you can't just say you felt coerced.
"Geez, I could have lost my job if I didn't commit genocide! "...
Does not show coercion only that you decided not to quit that job and kill people