Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in his writings published as "Letters and Papers From Prison", provides mankind with a strong statement on morality and the relationship between a citizen and the State. While Germany was under Hitler's grip, there were well educated men who understood that their duty was to follow orders, unlike Bonhoeffer who understood that to allow an evil to be committed was morally the same as to commit the evil yourself. We can't blame this divide on education or its lack. Otto Thorbeck, the judge over Bonhoeffer's trial, had the same classical education as Bonhoeffer; studying Antigone, Iliad, The Oddyssy, and The Bible. Works which provide guidance as to the meaning of good vs evil, justice, wisdom, and duty. If you don't believe in absolute good or evil, you could easily make the case that it is permissible to act in a normally unjust manner when the circumstances permit, that enacting the injustice on the orders of others does not sully ones own soul, or in other words sometimes it's ok to kill.
Bonhoeffer suffered the punishment of the State rather than acquiesce to the idea that the State is the arbiter of what is Absolutely Good or Absolutely Evil. If the State says that a prisoner is a traitor and needs to be sentenced to death, it isn't the individual's place to disagree. That is what Thorbeck believed, he was just doing his duty. Bonhoeffer didn't have to be imprisoned but faced certain persecution with the conviction that what Germany was doing was wrong and to not speak or act out would be equally wrong of him, a sin of omission.
So, what questions does this pose?
- Whose place is it to determine what is good or evil?
- Does a State have a soul? a conscience?
- If a State is soulless, upon whose soul falls the burden of evil acts done in the State name?
- If an action is evil when committed by an individual, can a State, on its own authority, declare that act to be just and legal when done in the State's name?
- When is it the duty of a Citizen to disobey the State?
- How should we feel about a society that allows the State to commit evil acts?
I expect to follow this piece with others where the lessons of various books that have made history can teach us about life in the modern age. Next would be Homer's Iliad.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
That there are such things as Absolute Good and Evil is a classical metaphysical understanding, and only in our postmodern times has this come to be questioned. However, I'm intrigued by your title, "Bonhoeffer on Bush." You seem to suggest Bonhoeffer's admonitions can easily be applied against Bush, as they were in his time against Hitler. If this is the case, I would strongly disagree with the appropriateness of the comparison. Bush strongly believed that Providence is there to guide a nation and lead it in what it right and good.
The idea of Bonhoeffer on Bush is more about being aware of what evil may come at the hands of a State willing to play fast and loose with the definitions of "good" and "evil". If it is wrong for a person to waterboard someone else, doing that same thing under the aegis of the State does not suddenly make it right or 'good'. Am I comparing two governments? No. I am asking questions to allow us to consider where one State went down the wrong path in order that we keep our own society from falling into that same trap.
Thanks for the clarification. I think asking the question more forthrightly in the post would be more effective. People will react less emotionally if they do not perceive any attempts at moral relativism if they understand the intent is to examine ourselves so we don't end up where Nazi Germany allowed itself to go.
The thing that has historically scared us about Nazi Germany is that we see the shades of the Nazi sins in us all (the Christian doctrine of total depravity). So to avoid the Nazi crimes, it takes constant self-examination and discipline in following the law and subjecting the law to the greater good.
Post a Comment