Perhaps I misunderstand your intent but the historical additions and your
philosophical preferences don't really alter your original dismissal of H
based on his political association. I don't want to personalize this and
this is not a legal forum but under fantasy cross-examination (my background
is predominantly criminal law with grad work in philosophy and psychology)
you would be obliged to defend a position which I would set into a wide
range of discriminations. It would be excessive to include categories such
as racial profiling (e.g. driving while black = German fulfilling his duties
during WW2) but discrimination (not that there is anything wrong with it
here) based on political association (consider the various refugee or human
rights legislations) sounds appropriate. I remember reading "Heidegger and
the Political" (Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal, 1991) a volume with the
ostensible purpose of negating H on similar grounds. Witnessing the
humiliations of those with socially unacceptable views/behaviour has only
fortified my initial revulsion against what I consider to be simple human
prejudice. Incidentally, Canada's Supreme Court has determined that
following orders within certain bounds and fulfilling one's duties is not
sufficient to determine legal culpability. Social branding (interesting
lit)continues. As Joe mentioned, no phil here but it is important to
maintain the freedom to evaluate others without exclusion on any grounds,
particularly I would argue in a case such as H.
Regards, Richard
|