miércoles, abril 04, 2012

The Question of German Guilt

Jaspers, Karl (2000): The Question of German Guilt. New York: Fordham University Press

Introduction of the 2000 Edition (by Joseph Koterski):

the echoes of the tragedy will linger... History is like that (vii)

Germany was guilty of bringing all this suffering upon itself for having brought so much suffering upon others. The times were impatient for distinctions. (viii-ix)

Jaspers brings to bear a sacred principle of ethics: one bears responsability only to the degree that one has taken part and acted. (ix)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Everything suddenly sounds altogether different. (1)


The fact that we have a military government now means, without my having to say so in so many words, that we have no right to criticize the military government. 

Truth does not exist as merchandise ready-made for delivery; it exists only in methodical movement, in the thoughtfulness of reason. (4)

We want to accept the other, to try to see things from the other's point of view; in fact, we virtually want to seek out opposing views. To get at the truth, an opponent is more important than one who agrees with us. (6)

Emotion argues against the truth of the speaker . 

We do not want to force opinions on one another. But in the common search for truth there must be no barriers of charitable reserve, no gentle reticence, no comforting deception. There can be no question that might not be raised, nothing to be fondly taken for granted, no sentimental and  practical  lie that would have to be guarded or that would be untouchable. (7) 


Let us make this plain: in the course of events the survivor seems always right. Success apparently justifies. The man on top believes that he has the truth of a good cause on his side. The implies the profound injustice of blindness for the failures, for the powerless, for those who are crushed by events.

So now we must ask ourselves whether we are not lapsing into another noise, becoming self-righteous, deriving a legitimacy from the mere facts of our having survived and suffered. (8)

Talking to each other is difficult in Germany today, but the more important for that reason. For we differ extraordinarily in what we have experienced, felt, wished, cherished and done. (11)

We are all being transformed. (12)

Virtually every one has lost close relatives and friends, but how we lost them -in front-line combat, in bombings, in concentration camps or in the mass murders of the régime- results in greatly divergent inner attitudes. (15)

Scheme of distinctions

We must distinguish between:
(1) Criminal guilt: Crimes are acts capable of objective proof  and violate unequivocal laws. Jurisdiction rests with the court which in formal proceedings can be relied upon to find the facts and apply the law.
(2) Political guilt: This involving the deeds of statesman and of the citizenry of a state, results in my having yo bear the consequences of the deeds of the state whose powers governs me and under whose order I live. Everybody is co-responsible for the way he is govern. Jurisdiction rests with the power and the will of the victor... Success decides. Political prudence... serves to mitigate arbitrary powers.
(3) Moral guilt: I... am morally responsible  for all my deeds, including the execution of political and military orders. (25) Jurisdiction rests with my conscience.
(4) Metaphysical guilt: There exists a solidarity among men as human beings that makes each co-responsible for every wrong and every injustice in the world, especially for crimes committed in his presence or with his knowledge. If I fail to do whatever I can to prevent them, I too am guilty... Jurisdiction rests with God alone.



No hay comentarios.: