Sorry for the incoming blob of text, but it would be appreciated if anyone could supply any feedback/criticism!
Thanks in advance.
Prompt: Crisis of conscience can sometimes be greater than external conflict.
The Conversation
Oskar Groening and Collective Responsibility
[/size]
Earlier this month, a German court found 94 year old former SS member and Auschwitz guard Oskar Groening guilty of being an accessory to murder of 300,000 people. He was sentenced to four years jail, but given his age it is unlikely that he will actually spend any time in prison.
Nonetheless, this conviction raises some profound and pertinent questions on both the nature of evil and the moral culpability of those who propagate it.
Firstly, it should be noted that Groening was not directly involved in the killings of the prisoners. Known as the “Bookkeeper of Auschwitz”, his role in the camp was purely administrative. His primary job was to inventory the belongings of incoming prisoners and send them to Berlin to assist in the ultimately-doomed war-effort.
Before being posted at Auschwitz, Groening was unaware of the extermination process. However, after a few months at the camp he accepted his role in the practice and became relatively accustomed to life there.
However, that is not to say that Groening grew to accept the depravity of the atrocities committed at Auschwitz – far from it. He was morally disgusted with what was happening, so much so that he applied to transfer into combat service three times before he was finally accepted.
Given both his attitude towards the camp and his lack of involvement in the killings of the prisoners, an obvious question is begged – what exactly did Groening do wrong?
In his recent book The Most Good You Can Do, utilitarian philosopher and author Peter Singer argues that a morally righteous guard at Auschwitz is actually doing a disservice to the prisoners if he relinquishes his post. Objecting or rebelling against the Nazi hierarchy would only get him killed, and another person – perhaps worse – would take his place.
Singer believes that an act of compassion, no matter how small, is unnoticed by the prisoners because it acts as a “net positive force” on their lives, so to speak. Additionally, he believes that morally virtuous guards such as Groening cannot be blamed for their wrongdoing, because nothing they could have done could have possibly alleviated the struggles of the prisoners and resistance against the Nazi organization was utterly futile.
To blame Groening for the depravity of the Nazi’s is both fallacious and fundamentally unfair. It is analogous to blaming the receptionist of a bank every time they launder money, or blaming a chef in the army every time they are found to kill civilians. Being part of an organization does not necessarily make you responsible for the entirety of its impact, especially so if you are forced to work there against your will as was in Groening’s case.
A counter-argument to this can be found in Kate Grenville’s novel The Lieutenant, which raises moral and ethical questions similar to those brought on by the Groening trial. Set in colonial New South Wales, one of the key concerns of this fictionalized account of the Botany Bay colony is whether individuals are responsible for the actions the organization they belong to (in this case the British Empire) commit.
The novel focuses on the internal conflicts faced by conscientious soldier Daniel Rooke (based on the real life figure of the First Fleet astronomer William Dawes), who is personally disgusted by the atrocities committed against the indigenous aborigines by the British, much like Groening’s attitude towards the Nazi’s. However, unlike Groening, Rooke takes full moral responsibility for his actions, as he believes that “if you are part of that (British Imperial) machine, you are part of its evil.”
Rooke illustrates this point of view when he learns the true intentions of the British hunting party. In retaliation to a justified aboriginal murder of a colonist (Rooke suspects that he had been shooting aboriginals indiscriminately), Governor Gilbert (a fictionalized Arthur Phillip) orders a hunting party to kill six “natives” as reprisal. Rooke is forced to join said party. This pricks the conscience of the morally virtuous Rooke, who resolves to abandon the colony as he cannot be “a cog in the machine”.
His disgust of the British is exacerbated by his friendship with an aboriginal girl named Targaran, who teaches him their language. This is symbolic of his understanding and empathy with the indigenous people, as he is the only settler in the novel who forms relationships with the Aboriginals purely for the sake of friendship instead of an overarching nefarious desire to dominate the land.
His decision to leave the colony speaks to the character of Rooke, who would prefer execution or exile (the punishment for mutiny) instead of playing a passive role in the atrocities.
However passive this role may be, Rooke cannot justify alleviating moral responsibility from himself because of the fact that crimes are being committed in his white-Anglo-Saxon name by an organization he willingly joined.
Some would argue that this line of reasoning is applicable to Groening as well. He could perhaps be blamed for voluntarily joining the SS, a view which is shared by Grenville’s Lieutenant. Daniel Rooke feels morally responsible for the actions undertaken by the British, as he joined the Royal Marines on his own accord. However, it would be unfair to single out Groening for his act of joining the SS – he is not the first and will not be the last vulnerable young man led astray by war-time propaganda.
While it is crucial to acknowledge the absence of moral culpability that Groening possesses, it is also important to examine what happens when individuals fail to question unethical and immoral decisions. There is a no more poignant example of this in our recent history than the infamous My Lai massacre.
In the midst of the Vietnam War, over 500 innocent South Vietnamese civilians were massacred in the village of My Lai by around 100 US Army Soldiers. Army commanders had advised the now paranoid and psychosocially tortured soldiers that the villagers were either Viet Cong or VC sympathizers. Upon arrival, the soldiers found no Viet Cong, but nonetheless rounded up and murdered hundreds of women, children and elderly. Not a single shot was fired at the American troops during this time.
Although this horror occurred decades after the holocaust, the underlying justification of those involved remains the same – the perpetrators all believed that were simply “following orders”. In his personal statement, Lieutenant Calley (leader of the US troops at My Lai) affirmed that “I carried out the order that I was given and I do not feel wrong in doing so.”
This is similar to Groening’s perspective on his conduct, who states that while he feels “morally guilty” for his actions, he does not take any legal responsibility for them.
Given the tumultuous and psychologically damaging effects of war, perhaps it is in order to show empathy and understanding for these two men. Some readers of this piece would have no doubt done the same in their positions, and it is unfair to judge someone without first understanding the background and reasoning behind their decisions.
The examples of Groening and Calley are but one of thousands that illustrate the unclear line between whether you are responsible for the actions your group commits or not. While their fates will inevitably be forgotten by the annuls of time, other people will almost certainly be thrust into similar positions as Groening and Calley, where they are forced to grapple with questions of morality and responsibility.
Ultimately, it is important to ponder the implications of this court ruling; and when the time comes it is imperative that we examine our collective responsibility for actions committed in our name.
Written explanation: For my context piece, I have responded to the prompt “crisis of conscience can sometimes be greater than external conflict” by writing in an opinion piece for The Conversation online journal. My piece mainly concerns the conviction of former Nazi and Auschwitz guard Oskar Groening, and whether he can truly be held responsible for actions he was forced to commit. The purpose of my piece is to raise the idea of moral culpability within the reader and discuss the psychology of “normal” people committing atrocities because they have been alleviated of the responsibility for their actions.
Since my piece was published in The Conversation, its primary audience is politically, historically and philosophically aware Australians who would enjoy engaging in the psychological ideas that underpin my text, regardless if they agree with its contention.
The educated nature of my audience and the academic quality of my publication is reflected in my language choices. I intended to mimic the academic, professional and politically bi-partisan tone employed by the columnists by presenting both sides of the argument in an even-handed manner. Additionally, I endeavored to impersonate their proficient language use by employing phrases such as “morally virtuous”, “moral culpability” and “on his own accord”. I also used loaded language to reinforce the terrible nature of the actions the men committed, with heavy words such as “atrocities”, “torture” and “horror”.
My piece is related to the prompt as it discussed the crises of conscience faced by morally-torn individuals such as Oskar Groening, Daniel Rooke and the soldiers behind the My Lai Massacre. Additionally, I used the work of utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer to further my discussion around the nature of evil and the moral culpability of those who are propagate it.
My piece is related to the set text of The Lieutenant as it explicitly discusses the moral and ethical concerns faced by protagonist Daniel Rooke. Furthermore, the idea of obligation to the authority versus personal morality forms the basis of my piece, just as it does to the novel itself. Additionally, I connected my article to The Lieutenant by comparing and contrasting Oskar Groening and Daniel Rooke themselves, discussing their own personal views on their actions as well as their naivety for willingly joining to these nefarious organizations.
Home
Help
Search
Login
