watson Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 (edited) I got into a bit of a debate the other night. Enless we were part of the society during the Nazi regime, we can't understand the psychology of individuals affected by it. One of the terrible things the Nazis did do was to ask non-jews if they knew of any jews nearby or if any of their neighbors were jewish, or hiding any jews. The consequences of lying to the Nazi's could have been death to the parents, children, etc, imprisonment, etc. If the soldiers at the door threatened death to you and your family to turn over the jews/gypsies/homosexuals next door that they knew you were aware about, and you refused based on morality of valuing human life, knowing that death was imminent for refusing to help, would this be an "altruistic" act or a moral stance? Or would this be a martyr if you chose not to reveal your knowledge? Human nature to survive, protecting one's children, would that not trump the morality of "valuing human life" and remaining strong to your values? I'm confused a bit. My fellow debater suggested she would die before turning in her neighbor, even sacrificing herself and children before turning in those wanted by the Nazis. In the heat of the moment, I find it hard to believe that one's brain would have much room for a moral argument between self-survival (including offspring) and saving someone you don't know that well. Thoughts? Edited March 23, 2009 by watson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 It's definitely not altruism to fight evil. The right thing to do in that situation is to fight the Nazis or, if you have a family, try to escape with them, and then join the fight. And yes, a moral person should wrap their mind around this problem and do the right thing. From 1933 to 1944 they all had 11 years to think it through, so the "heat of the moment" thing is no excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RachelColoredGlasses Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Even before I try to apply an explicit principle to a situation, I like to ask myself, "Which consequences can I live with?" In this situation, that question becomes particularly apropos. To my thinking, there are certain circumstances that I find so repugnant that I simply cannot tolerate being a conscious, thinking being in them. That's rather a fancy way to say that I'd rather die than see them come about. In the situation that you describe, I think it's arguable whether you have any choice in the matter to begin with. And it is important to remember that ethics exists only to guide man in making choices, and in particular choices that pertain to furthering his life. But in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation, also commonly referred to as a "lifeboat" situation (because in a lifeboat at sea, there's not a lot you can do to survive, if anything), you aren't faced with the normal (i.e. proper to man's nature) mode of living. Normally, naturally, man must use his mind to determine a way of exploiting nature to produce circumstances favorable to his life. Prior to civilization, he must perform every necessary task himself. In civilization, division of labor becomes possible (even preferable), and he can specialize in a limited activity and count on trade with others to acquire all his needs. But in life as it existed under the Third Reich, no such actions were possible. There was no way to answer the question, "How should I proceed so as to benefit my own life while leaving others free to do the same?" It was an artificially induced hell. And the name of the game, in Hell, is Beggar Your Neighbor. Will you be predator or prey? But what were the practical consequences of choosing to turn over Jews? Well, you'd remain free of concentration camps, and even more immediately you would be allowed to "trade" with others, i.e. purchase bread. So in a sense, you'd have your immediate life, such as it was, and have opportunities for further action. But looking a little past that, what would your life be worth? Would that course of action bring you any closer to man's proper state of being, i.e. to exploit nature and leave other men free to do the same? No. Not really. You would only be, to a greater or lesser extent, fueling the German Wehrmacht and its destructive philosophy, which would ultimately kill you, too. On the other hand, what were the practical consequences of choosing to hide or succor the Jews? Presuming you weren't caught, you would still have to live in fear of discovery. And even though the principle of honesty doesn't strictly apply to this situation, the fact remains that leading a "double life", which is what actively hiding facts from others amounts to, is extremely difficult. It wouldn't directly benefit you. In fact, it would tend to multiply the difficulties of your own already deprived life. And while the psychological consequences of capitulating to the criminals that the Nazis were would have been devastating, there is no denying that the alternative had its own dangers - being at odds with your neighbors and the prevailing sensibilities of your society takes its toll on your frame of mind (think "siege mentality"). I think the thing that tips the scale for me is that by helping Jews to remain free of the Nazis, I would have been working toward a state of affairs in which I, or at least those I loved, was properly free to address the problems of life and safe in a civilization that respects man's nature. It's subtle so it may not seem like much, but like I said, I'd rather not go through the motions of life-proper-to-man if they are only an illusion. Rachel P.S. And, as the old story goes: "I could die; the king could die; and who knows, maybe the horse will sing!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Back then one knew the neighbors a whole lot better than one does today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg12341 Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I think that most people would like to believe they would do the right thing, and not sell out their neighbors. In all reality though I would probaly agree with the self preservation aspect of the situation. And at those times weakness is a virtue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokarrin Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 And at those times weakness is a virtue. If it's a virtue, it's not weakness. If you're talking about fear of dying, that can indeed be a virtue, but you need to be sure you've properly defined what 'living' is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginny Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 If you read Rand, you'll see that she says,, "morality ends at the point of a gun." In other words, whether you turn in your neighbor or not is not a moral issue. It's probably in greater measure of bravery, which is not a moral issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I got into a bit of a debate the other night. Enless we were part of the society during the Nazi regime, we can't understand the psychology of individuals affected by it. One of the terrible things the Nazis did do was to ask non-jews if they knew of any jews nearby or if any of their neighbors were jewish, or hiding any jews. The consequences of lying to the Nazi's could have been death to the parents, children, etc, imprisonment, etc. If the soldiers at the door threatened death to you and your family to turn over the jews/gypsies/homosexuals next door that they knew you were aware about, and you refused based on morality of valuing human life, knowing that death was imminent for refusing to help, would this be an "altruistic" act or a moral stance? Or would this be a martyr if you chose not to reveal your knowledge? ------------- What is your understanding of altruism and how does it apply to the example you give? How does Objectivism define altruism? Does the principle apply in your example? If you think it does, please explain how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.