![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ethics and Efficiency
Oct. 30th, 2014 08:57 pmToday, I came across this quote:
"Ein Volk, das diese wirtschaftlichen Leistungen vollbracht hat, hat ein Recht darauf, von Auschwitz nichts mehr hören zu wollen." Franz Josef Strauß in the Frankfurter Rundschau, 13. September 1969. Quoted after Wikiquote.
What Mr. Strauss said translates roughly to "A nation that has achieved that kind of economic performance has a right to not want to hear about Auschwitz anymore." Essentially, he claimed that, because of Germany's sucess, the darker chapters in the country's history ought to be forgotten.
I would not have taken much notice of this, had not, some time ago, a casual aquaintance of mine told me about a honourable, but stupid thing he did, and afterwards remarked that this probably would cause him to sink even lower in my opinion. This surprised me, as the reason for my low opinion had been his unethical behaviour in a different situation.
It seems that there is a substantial number of people who know only the categories "good" and "bad" In their minds, if they have done something "bad" they can do something "good" to even it out.
That, however, is not how my opinion on people (or countries) works.
The German nation did ethically reprehensible things. This stain on the nation's reputation can only be removed by doing ethically good things. Economic success is not ethical. It is a "good" thing, but not in the moral or ethical sense. Mr. Strauss' demand therefore seems nonsensical to me.
Likewise, my aquaintance. He did something reprehensible first. Then he did something stupid, which was, at the same time, the right thing to do. It seems, that in his mind, he did two things I consider "bad", and thus lowered my opinion on him even further.
In my mind, however, he did something ethically reprehensible first, then did something ethically good, so I could, in theory, consider him ethically neutral. It was also a bit stupid. As I don't judge people by their intelligence or lack thereof, my opinion on him has actually improved.
(Should anyone read this, I do apologize for my English; I am not a native speaker. Feel free to point out grammar mistakes and such.)
"Ein Volk, das diese wirtschaftlichen Leistungen vollbracht hat, hat ein Recht darauf, von Auschwitz nichts mehr hören zu wollen." Franz Josef Strauß in the Frankfurter Rundschau, 13. September 1969. Quoted after Wikiquote.
What Mr. Strauss said translates roughly to "A nation that has achieved that kind of economic performance has a right to not want to hear about Auschwitz anymore." Essentially, he claimed that, because of Germany's sucess, the darker chapters in the country's history ought to be forgotten.
I would not have taken much notice of this, had not, some time ago, a casual aquaintance of mine told me about a honourable, but stupid thing he did, and afterwards remarked that this probably would cause him to sink even lower in my opinion. This surprised me, as the reason for my low opinion had been his unethical behaviour in a different situation.
It seems that there is a substantial number of people who know only the categories "good" and "bad" In their minds, if they have done something "bad" they can do something "good" to even it out.
That, however, is not how my opinion on people (or countries) works.
The German nation did ethically reprehensible things. This stain on the nation's reputation can only be removed by doing ethically good things. Economic success is not ethical. It is a "good" thing, but not in the moral or ethical sense. Mr. Strauss' demand therefore seems nonsensical to me.
Likewise, my aquaintance. He did something reprehensible first. Then he did something stupid, which was, at the same time, the right thing to do. It seems, that in his mind, he did two things I consider "bad", and thus lowered my opinion on him even further.
In my mind, however, he did something ethically reprehensible first, then did something ethically good, so I could, in theory, consider him ethically neutral. It was also a bit stupid. As I don't judge people by their intelligence or lack thereof, my opinion on him has actually improved.
(Should anyone read this, I do apologize for my English; I am not a native speaker. Feel free to point out grammar mistakes and such.)
