Excellent and painful question. The short answer is no mainstream ethical test or model—not Rotary's Four-Way Test, not the PLUS Model, not most corporate ethics frameworks—would reliably withstand the moral collapse and terror of Nazi Germany unless grounded in a radical commitment to human dignity that exceeds the system itself.

But let’s go deeper.

---

❌ Why Most Models Fail in Totalitarian Regimes

Frameworks like the Four-Way Test or the PLUS Model:

• Assume a shared moral universe and mutual goodwill.

• Depend on internal consistency, not external resistance.

• Presume that law, policy, and truth are neutral or accessible.

In Nazi Germany, truth was censored, law was weaponized, fairness was redefined racially, and benefit was framed in nationalist or genocidal terms. These tests become meaningless or dangerous when the regime can invert values and punish dissent.

---

✅ What Might Survive?

To endure and guide ethical action in such a context, a model must include:

1. Radical Humanism – A non-negotiable commitment to human dignity, even when illegal or socially punished.

2. Moral Courage – Not just internal clarity, but the will to act in conditions of fear, isolation, or threat.

3. Transcendent or External Norms – Something above the law, above the Volk, above political convenience. Think: divine law (e.g., Bonhoeffer), Kantian dignity, or the image of the Other.

---

🕊️ 1. The Categorical Imperative (Kant)

“Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

Why it might survive:

• It is universalist, not relativist.

• It values human beings as ends, not means.

• It offers a rigorous internal check that resists utilitarian calculations like “this helps the state.”

But: Like Arendt, many have noted it can become abstract, cold, or paralyzing—especially without lived solidarity or courage.

---

✝️ 2. The Sermon on the Mount

“Whatever you did for one of the least of these... you did for me.”
“Love your enemy... Blessed are the peacemakers.”

This Christian ethical model:

• Elevates mercy, nonviolence, and solidarity.

• Centers the oppressed.

• Commands action even when illegal (think of Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Sophie Scholl).

Why it might survive:

• It’s grounded in a moral authority beyond the state.

• It does not assume reciprocation or worldly reward.

• It calls for conscience-in-action, not passivity.

But: It demands suffering, sacrifice, and faith—it's not a “test” so much as a call to martyrdom.

---

🧱 3. Emmanuel Levinas’ Ethics of the Other

“The face of the Other is an ethical command.”

Levinas, a Jewish survivor and post-Holocaust thinker, places the encounter with the Other as the beginning of ethics—not law, not reason.

Why it might survive:

• It resists objectification and systemic logic.

• The “face” of the victim interrupts ideology.

• It requires responsibility before thinking, even before knowing.

But: It offers no manual, no structure—only the demand: “You must not kill me.”

---

⚙️ Could a “New Model” Be Built for Collapse?

If we wanted a model that could “work” in a place like Nazi Germany, it would need to:

• Center irreducible human worth, not consequence

• Be invulnerable to propaganda and legality

• Function even when isolated, afraid, and endangered

• Demand civil disobedience, not neutrality

This isn’t a test—it’s a conviction, or even witness.

---

Final Thought

The question of "what test would work under Nazism" is really this:

What kind of ethic survives when the entire structure of the world is designed to destroy ethics?

Any model that survives must be transcendent, relational, and prepared to break the law for the sake of the Other.

Would you like to explore a model based on Levinas and Arendt together, a more practical civil disobedience decision framework, or a comparison of Bonhoeffer’s faith-action ethic vs Kantian moral duty?