Thursday, December 30, 2010

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Grey Zones and Double-Binds: Holocaust challenges to ethics: John K. Roth

Roth mentions that Kant asked three questions: What can I know, what should I do, and what may I hope? The second is the one focused on ethics and morals, a question that makes ethics as old as human existence. Our actions force us to face what is just or unjust, right or wrong, and good or evil - forcing ethics into play. Ethics are also influenced by our value judgements and institutions. This brings up the question of objective vs. subjective ethics. Are there ones that are universal or will culture influence a person's decision? Ethics would not be ethics if they didn't force us to have critical inquiry, which is good because judgments can be mistaken.

Roth worries that we as people won't take ethics serious enough in the future. He brings up John Rawls and the "Vail of Ignorance." When placed behind the vail, we don't know our role in the world. This forces us to make decisions not based on ourselves but how we would want the situation to be if we were any other person in the situation. Right and wrong would be easier to establish as it would have to be considered reasonable from every party or at least as many as possible.

If humans knew everything then we wouldn't need critical ethical reflection and thought. Often conflict is caused by people disagreeing with what is right and what is wrong. The Grey Zone, as defined by Primo Levi, is where there is no complete clarity in ethics despite efforts to remove ambiguity. When ethics face the grey zone and come out with less "appeal" then trust in the moral world is lost. This grey zone helps to show that failure.

Roth believes that the conscious plays a huge role in ethics, but each individuals is not the same. We each possess the ability to think but the judgements and values we use are different. This is evident through the Nazi conscience, as they all acted in ways they thought were right and good. Racial hygiene was one such example, protecting the German Genetic Stream

Nazi conscience and ethics can be condensed into three main pieces.

  1. Germans are different from every other group of people
  2. German purity is the most important of issues and leads to prosperity
  3. Germans should put German people's interests before self interest
These three parts lead to a nationalism that moved for ethnic cleaning, violence for the sake of the nation, and progress to prevent the nation from decay. It was a code of ethics because they called for integrity, communal solidarity, self-sacrifice, loyalty, courage, patritism and hardness - values and virtues that are good in themselves. (There was also the unwillingness to feel for enemies as a value) These virtues helped to justify the horrible actions in the holocaust. This is problematic, as we traditionally see ethics as things that produce good not evil.

Roth says that there are "ethical pit falls" when it comes to saying we study the holocaust for ethical reasons. The first is that triviality and banality must be avoided! The second part is that the holocaust can't be preempted, rather it must be accepted as what is and the full extent of what happened. This means avoiding ethical judgements that can't stand the questioning of the shadow of the Birkenau. The Birkenau was the "final solution" killing machine used to mass murder jews.

Roth brings up Sarah Kofman, who induced the idea of knotted words. These are words that want out but that are suppressed because of being forced to be contained for so long. They are painful and difficult to start or continue. Roth states that these are what Double-binds are - a duty to speak and yet the almost physical impossibility of speaking, words choked off.

The holocaust has created an obligation for ethics to be spoken about, but a double-bind is created by the horrible fear that too much damage has been done for recovery - ethics are overwhelmed with no chance.

Despite the nazi attempt to destroy humanity, it showed that there is an "indestructible unity." You can kill a person but that does not change that they are still a person. What we can take is that it is important to support the community of people who don't have a community.

Discussion Questions/Comments

I love how thoughtful inquiry is part of our mission statement

I like Rawls vail of ignorance, but I feel like it would be really hard to follow. Throughout the ethical decision making process you would still be subconsciously influenced by your own situation.

I find it really interesting how the "ten commandments for pick a spouse" was designed to act much like the real ten commandments or bible, both in form, order, and feel of content.

It is scary that these writers killed themselves (Pg. 90) after making it out of such a horrible experience, the world in my mind would be so much better. Did they lose all hope in the world for good, despite the improvement of their lives?

Key Terms/Definitions

Institution: a society or organization founded for a religions, educational, social, or similar purpose
The Grey Zone:
Decalogue: the ten commandments
Banality: so lacking in originality it is obvious

No comments:

Post a Comment