Want this question answered?
"Crimes Against Humanity" and obedience to orders was not a viable excuse for committing atrocities .
The Nuremberg Trials established the principle that individuals can be held accountable for committing crimes against humanity, even if they were following orders. This set a precedent for international law and established that individuals are responsible for their actions, regardless of their official role.
The U.S Supreme Court ruled against the violent crimes against women act in 1994. Their ruling was made based on the idea that parts of the law were unconstitutional.
Thats a matter of opinion. It depends on if you think it was the fault of the soldier who pulled the trigger, the officer who gave the order, or the person who had the idea in the first place and decided to follow through with it. In general, all those involved in committing a crime are guilty. The fact that a person was acting under orders doesn't excuse the action. Let's take something less emotive than killing. Consider soldiers robbing a bank under orders in enemy territory. I would have thought all involved were guilty.
Taoism
The Confucian view consists of duty and humanity, with humanity having compassion and empathy for others.
The main idea of Hammurabi's Code was a set of laws and crimes.
idea of the innate goodness of humanity.
i dont understand what you are asking!
At the time, there was no humanity when Earth was made. When there was humanity, there was no religion. They had no such idea that God existed. We still also don't know that does really God exists or not.
It's kind of like CSI in that it's crime scene investigations, but it's focused on naval crimes instead of civilian crimes.
Prometheus is a figure from Greek mythology known for defying the gods by stealing fire and giving it to humanity, thereby granting them knowledge and advancement. The main idea of Prometheus is often seen as rebellion against oppressive forces and the pursuit of knowledge and progress, even at great personal cost.