AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
SIR: Konrad Low's argument against the guilt of the Germans (September 2004) is marred by one fantastic paragraph: "The Basic Law establishes ... a right to resistance. It does not speak of a duty to resist. Where is the ethical norm that stipulates resistance against murderous force without any concern for one's own safety?"
It is unclear whether the "Where is?" question means "Where in the Basic Law is this ethical norm?", or "Where anywhere is it?" Since it is moral rather than legal guilt that is at issue, what the Basic Law does or does not say is immaterial, and the question must be taken in its latter sense (and the essay accused of some muddledness).
On the question, "What ethical norm prescribes that evil be resisted despite that doing so be contrary to self-interest, and even a threat to one's survival?" ... where can one begin? With Socrates? With Christ? With Martin Luther King? Do young soldiers in Iraq cavil that though they recognise opposing murderous force to be a good cause, they have no duty to give their lives? Did Kant reckon calculation of self-interest to colour, let alone determine, what duty is? Did even Hobbes say men, when called by the state to military service (to resist external threats, a species of "murderous ...
Source: HighBeam Research, German guilt and forgiveness.(Letter to the Editor)