What distinction between obedience to orders and moral responsibility was clarified by the Nuremberg trials?

Correct answer: Obeying orders is not a complete defence in serious crimes

The direct answer is C: obeying orders is not a complete defence in serious crimes. The Nuremberg trials established an important accountability principle: a person cannot automatically escape responsibility by saying that a superior gave the order. Option C is correct because individuals may have a duty to recognise and refuse participation in grave crimes, even within a state organisation. Option A is wrong because an order cannot turn murder or persecution into a morally right act. Option B is wrong because state orders can be examined by courts and judged under law and international standards. Option D is wrong because responsibility does not lie only with victims; perpetrators, commanders, officials, and sometimes collaborators may also be accountable. This does not mean every minor worker had exactly the same guilt; courts can consider knowledge, role, pressure, and choice. The central distinction is between explaining why someone acted and excusing a serious crime. Memory cue: “I was ordered” may explain conduct, but it does not automatically erase responsibility.