The Nuremberg Trials

In ths round, I will first refute my opponent's contention and, if time allows, defend my own case. Definitions: On the question or not whether Nuremberg Trials are just or not, it is crucial for us to examine the actions that happened during the Second World War. After all, Nuremberg Trials weren't created to try wars that haven't even started. In terms of historic issues, I fail to see how later events would affect whether or not Nuremberg Trials were just at the time. Rebuttal: Contention 1: "At the time that the German officials on trial committed the various atrocities for which they were charged, no international law specifically banned their actions." Actually, killing of civilians, as well as killing of POWs, are against the established laws of war under the Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions. German actions during World War II are clearly already illegal, and they can definitely be tried for it. Contention 2: "Both sides bombed large numbers of civilians, a notable example of this being the firebombing of Dresden by Allied forces. This was notably left out of the definition of both "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes" though it can easily be seen as either." There were yet to be laws that restrict aerial warfare. As the result, legal preccedent is being set in the case of aerial warfare. Contention 3: Yes, those there are some faults with the judges' selection on part of the Soviets. However, most judges' records were fairly clean. The acquittal of Rudolph Hess shows exactly that. Contention 4: My opponent brings up the Strategic Hamlet Program, which is somewhat confusing. The SHP is, in no way, shape, or form, a crime against humanity. Sure, it may be a major infringement on human rights, but caling it a crime against humanity was grossly exaggerating the program. Also, U.S soldiers suspected of committing war crime were court-martialed. This, of course, certainly did not happen in the Wehrmacht. Defend: Contention 1: Retributive justice is one of the many justice theories around. I see no reason why it is not acceptable as a way to weigh whether or not something is "just". In fact, this theory of justice has been around for centuries, even fining a place in the biblical boook of Deuteronomy. Again, the definition of justice, which my opponent accepts, is "the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity." Retributive justice, being a morality, is certainly an acceptable way to value justice. "The number of people that "received retributive justice" certainly exceeds the number of people who were directly harmed. " The basis of the retributive justice theory is the the punishment must be proportional, e.g "Let the punishment fit the crime" Con.2) "Because victorious nations have not been put on trial for the same crimes as Germany." Are there any actual examples of this? "Many wars are fought today without right cause or intention, but I do not see leaders being brought to trial and hanged." Again, we are discussing whether or not Nuremberg Trials are just, not whether or not current conflicts are justifiable. I do not see how punishing Germany for an aggressive, unjustifiable war would be considered unjust. Con.3) "Is it just that because the Allies committed fewer crimes, they should not be punished? That is not how justice works. It is not "rational" or "fair" or "equitable"." According to the utilitarian moral standard, justice is the maximazation of welfare for all relevant individuals. Even if the Nuremberg Trials are bias, it is still "just" because it benefits a larger number of people. According to utilitarianism, punishment is a necessary sacrifice to bring about a greater good. The reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Utilitarianism, being a moral/ethics system, is also another valid way to describe whether or not something is just. Conclusion: This debate revolves around one issue: What is justice? Unfortunately, there is no one answer to what is "just". However, my opponent seems to believe that there is only one universal system to determine whether or not something is just. This is absolutely false. Justice, being "the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, fairness, or equity", also changes depending on what system of ethics, rationality, law..etc it is base on. Since the definition also did not specify which system we should use to weigh justice, utilitarianism is therefore acceptable. In my case, I have shown you how the Nuremberg Trials can be justified under utilitarianism.