They are contrary to just about every moral philosophy mankind has ever come up with.
they dont want to get in trouble for what they did and its a way to get rid of there actions
Adolf Hitler did not receive the Nobel Prize because his actions and beliefs promoted hatred, violence, and the violation of human rights. The Nobel Prizes are awarded for achievements that bring about positive change in the world, such as advancements in science, literature, and peace, which Hitler's actions were contrary to.
he thought slavery would probaly start back up but he was wrong it just got stronger He hoped that his actions would help the Confederacy to rise up again.
Generally their role was 'bystanders', this is the category given to countries such as the US or the UK or Switzerland.But some outsiders, on an individual basis joined the SS and became perpetrators.Similarly some outsiders, on an individual basis were in the wrong place at the wrong time and became victims.____The term bystander is generally given to individuals, not countries. It recent years it has become very fashionable to regard the bystanders as morally on a par with the perpetrators. However, one needs to draw a distinction between bystanders who were actually in a position to help and those who were not. [This needs to be moved to 'discussion']
His main ideas that i know of were to have people that only had blonde hair, blue eyes and light colored skin. Which is something that was very wrong of him to believe considering the fact that he had brown hair, brown eyes and dark skin. His idea of the superior race was for them to look that way. Plus, he believed that people who looked like that were the strongest and smartest of all people.
it was very wrong.
The Judge - 1986 I Wrong Baby was released on: USA: 5 May 1988
In ethics, the doctrine that actions should be judged right or wrong on the basis of their consequences. The most familiar example would be utilitarianism - that action is best that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
Unless you have proof you are not guilty the judge will still find you guilty. Why not just take responsibility for your actions if you are guilty.
I personally believe that it is wrong to judge people based on their religion.
Bad Movement
so if you get it wrong you can back-track and see where you went wrong.
It has no scientific basis.
Some people would say no on the basis that they wouldn't, but there is nothing wrong with it.
Yes, judges can be thrown out.
In theory, the purpose of any government is to make society better for everyone who is governed by that government, hence, laws must be beneficial for the general public. If a law is designed instead to benefit some segment of the public (i.e., a special interest group) at the expense of the general public, then the law is wrong. Note that the US Supreme Court does not judge laws on the basis that I described above; it judges them solely on the basis of their consistency with the US constitution. The constitution can be wrong in some respects, but it remains the supreme law of the land. If it is wrong, it can be amended.
Responsibility refers to the duty or obligation to act in a certain way, making decisions and being accountable for the consequences of those actions. It involves taking ownership of one's actions and their impact on oneself and others.