Ethics During and After the Holocaust: The Ethics of Forgiveness: John K. Roth

To Roth, forgiveness means "to be merciful, to pardon an offense or an offender, to give up a claim against another individual, to set aside a debt, to relinquish anger or resentment, however justifiable those feelings may be, to free a person from the burden of guilt." This makes forgiveness both an after-word and a wounded word.

Who needs forgiveness? Everyone, Roth says - human kind needs forgiveness - but this question can be asked in two ways. "Who needs forgiveness?" and "Who needs forgiveness?" The first places doubt about everyone having a need for it, while the latter questions the virtue of forgiveness. The latter leads to indifference, condoning, or trivialization instead of justice.

Using history, of the bible, Roth notes that God's anger is powerful, but that his mercy and forgiveness are more present despite the tension between the two. As beings made in his image, Roth believes that we should show mercy and forgiveness to liken that image. The holocaust complicated this, and now Roth thinks that advocacy for forgiveness needs to come from other sources such as ethics. Many holocaust survivors haven't even been able to discuss forgiveness. We are duped though if we assume that forgiveness is the same in every instance.

Writer Primo Levi wrote that forgiveness requires the other party to have an earnest will to be forgiven, otherwise it does no good. It also shows that forgiveness is voluntary. For genuine repentance requires condemning and rooting out the wrong done as well as acting to do so as soon as possible - the sooner the better. Deathbed confessions maybe sincere, but they do little good as the person will soon die. The dead can also not forgive.

Like love, forgiveness must be given freely; or it is not real.

That said it is also important to grant forgiveness if it is sincerely and constantly sought. Not doing so come dangerously close to mercilessness, which removes humanity from the world.

Heschel writes that "only sins committed against God can be forgiven by God." The holocaust was a sin against God, and is forgivable by him - but does he forgive is the question. Elie Wiesel did not believe that God should, as that would suppress the feelings of guilt that the offenders had.

Roth points to six ethics of forgiveness

1. Forgiveness is needed to stop unnecessary suffering from continuing.
2. Although needed, forgiveness can lead to less accountability and reduce the condemnation of injustice 
3. Sincere repentance must be required with efforts to right wrongs
4. Forgiveness can not be spoken for another person
5. Many deeds are unforgivable because the dead can't forgive
6. Forgiveness is a gift and can only be freely given

Discussion Questions/Comments

Do Jews believe that children don't go to Heaven if they aren't "confirmed" (bar mitzvah?)?

Is there a reason that God needs to forgive all the Jewish children who died in the holocaust?

I almost had an issue with deeds being unforgivable, but the dead part makes sense. It begs the question, can't the dead, if you believe in an afterlife, forgive those that sinned against them? You can be forgiven and not know it.

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Duped by Morality: John K. Roth

Roth claims our own plans, dispositions, and actions as the biggest culprits to why we get deceived so often. Morality though is not something we usually think as being misleading, rather we believe that it leads us in the right direction all the time. The holocaust showed how much we had actually ben duped by morality.

There are three clear examples in the Israeli-Palestinian struggle.

1. "Never again!" is deceptively reassuring as it only shows a desire to prevent ones own destruction
2. "The killing will stop" shows that we only hope we value life enough killings will stop, not actual results
3. Retribution, it is mistaken as a form that will teach a lesson. Winning a fight does not mean peace, just the end of the current fight

Roth feels that Christians owe Jews a debt we can never repay, because Christians took part in isolating Jews over centuries, helping the holocaust to happen in the end. Roth believes that a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would only bring a short term solution to the conflict, believe otherwise people would be duping themselves.


Discussion Questions/Comments

So is the PCUSA saying they want to support Palestinians financially? Or was the divestment creating more capital for...what?

So I was confused what the PCUSA story of divestment had to do with duped morality. I just saw that they changed their stance on the value of investing money into Israel. What morality were they duped by?



Key Terms/Definitions

Divestment: the action or process of selling off subsidiary business interests or investments

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

Ethics During and After the Holocaust: Why Study the Holocaust?: John K. Roth

Roth asks the question of why we study the holocaust. Despite sixty years having passed we still see genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder. Begs the most difficult of possibilities - maybe, despite all our efforts and the good they could potentially produce, learning about the holocaust is a waste of resources and time. Facing this question, he asks us to look deeper at the ethical yearnings and aspirations that stand at the core of holocaust studies.

Roth labels the holocaust as an "immense human failure." Ethics were harmed because it was shown that ethical teaching could be overridden or subverted to unethical ends. Many stood as bystanders while many more participated despite the unethical treatment of fellow humans. The status of moral norms were skewed by how so many people let these deaths happened. We have placed more importance on human rights and stopping crimes against humanity. Sharing the words and of ideas of Amery Maier, Roth shows us that the experience of help is a fundamental experience of being human - when help wasn't given we damaged the trust in the world that help would come.

Even one of the basic needs, Home, was destroyed for millions of people in the holocaust. Not just the places we live, but also the relationships, the safety, and the love we possess. It is true that homes recover in a sense, never the same as before but they still recover. Morals have continued to exist despite human's destructive power against its own kind but power has and clearly can be misused.

Genocide in some shape or form has always targeted children in some shape or form. Killing off children stops a people from growing both in population and culturally. Destroy those children, or totally ruin the culture and the existence of a people will disappear. If we would instead care for the world's children, not just our own, then Roth believes that we could overcome all genocide. The quality of human life depends on putting children first. Holocaust education reminds us to do just that. Roth asked the question of why we should study the holocaust. The answer is to teach that we should put children first, the priority of our existence.

Roth begs us to remember, take nothing good for granted.


Discussion Questions/Comments

What is moral relativism exactly?

One of the scariest parts for me is that the best way to destroy a people is to attack its weakest and brightest future - children.



Key Terms/Definitions

Impugned: despite the truth, validity, or honestly of (a statement or motive); call into question