"Yet in documenting the results of Nazi efforts to rid other countries of Jews, she concludes that "under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that ‘it could happen' in most places but it did not happen everywhere. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can be reasonably asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation" (p. 233). We could take this as evidence that the only hope of preventing future catastrophes must lie in a morality that is inherent in human nature. On the other hand, Arendt considers Eichmann "terribly and terrifyingly normal" (p. 276). Eichmann in Jerusalem leaves us wondering not only if justice was achieved in Eichmann's case, but also whether the lessons Arendt believes the trial has taught will make a difference in the future."
Do you agree with her statement that it is only reasonable to ask some to resist in situations like Nazi Germany? Is acceptable that most will comply under conditions of terror? What can we reasonably expect of most human beings?
Also, can we "only hope" to prevent future catastrophes by placing our trust in "a morality that is inherent in human nature"? Why is there such a disconnect between this inherently human morality and Eichmann's terrifyingly normal presence and behavior?
5 comments:
In repsonse to the trusting "morality that is inherent in human nature" comment, I do not think that this is the only hope for stopping future genocides, because so much of morality is learned rather than inherent. Trusting human morality has not worked in the past, so I think that rather than trusting facotrs that lie within humans, people can change factors in humans' environment such as what they learn and ideas that are spread.
In response to Katie, I think it is inherent in humans that we are a self-preserving species. That being said, I think what we learn is how to define the self. It might be inherent to protect those like you, or all humans depending one what you're taught, so i agree that education plays a key role in genocide prevention.
To respond to the question: is it acceptable that most will comply in situations of terror? I don't think it's "acceptable", but it is natural. I think like I said, people are self-preservers, and they would rather perform undesirable tasks, murder, rather than be murdered themselves.
In response to Katie:
If you go off the assumption that genocide is wrong, and you expect most people to feel that way, then I think it is acceptable to place faith in an "inherent human morality" because a people that believe genocide to be wrong will by necessity have some sort of moral outrage against it. If you don't pl;ace faith in human morality then aren't you saying that genocide is right or wrong depending on the person? If you give credence to moralities that support genocide, if you think that certain moralities are not inherent to human nature, then why is genocide wrong? Why should we support one morality over another?
Well, I think that we should support one morality over another, namely, a morality that views genocide as a crime because of the self-preservation aspect that Gaby brought up. It would not be beneficial to the human race as a species and would contradict evolution if genocides occurred often and were not opposed.
But I think that one morality is supported or can be supported over another simply because it is a morality that the majority of humans have. I know that Ms. Finn will not like the following sentence, but I would say that humans naturally do not directly support murder. Because most humans feel that murder is bad, it is safe to say that that is the "right" morality because it helps us to understand and judge the world more easily. If most humans did not share a common morality, or if we do not assume so, then it becomes very difficult or almost impossible to make many decisions that we are faced with every day. For example, when you refuse to buy clothes from a store that you know uses child labor, it is because you believe that child labor is wrong, and it is a generally accepted idea. If you had to stop and think about the fact that there might be millions of people who think that child labor is moral, it would make your decision much more difficult, regardless of your own personal beliefs.
Thom, I am not trying to give credence to moralities that support genocide or trying to say that the rightness of genocide depends on the person. I believe that genocide is always wrong, that is a part of my moral code. I am, however, saying that through certain experiences people sometimes believe that genocide is legitimate. Any instigator of a genocide is an example of this. So if we trusted a morality that is inherent in all humans to end gneocide, that would not work: if the moral code were inherent in all humans to the extent that it would need to be for us to trust that code to prevent genocide, then genocide would not happen due to that code, and that is not the case. This does not mean that the moral acceptability itself of the act changes depending on who thinks what about it.
In terms of why we should support one morality over another, we'd be going into an explanation of a moral code that says that we have a responsibility toward other human beings, so why we should is separate from why we do. My first comment wasn't about why people should or shouldn't think certain things, it was about the fact that they do, so I was not trying to lend validity to moral codes that support genocide. In terms of the "should" part, I think Jean-Paul Sartre does a good job of explaining why a moral code supporting respnsibility toward other human beings should be followed. He was involved in a resistance movement during WWII, and this website probably does a better job of summarizing his ideas on this responsibility than I could. http://www.sonoma.edu/users/d/daniels/Sartre%20sum.html
In terms of why humans generally do follow certain moral codes over others, I agree with Jillian about the self-preservation idea, and the idea that since a majority of people were raised to identify with a moral code that determines responsibility toward other human beings, that is the moral code laws are generally set by.
Post a Comment