Dirty Hands and Moral Luck: Kurt Gerstein -- by Alex Frey
Upon learning that his water-purifying chemical was being used as a weapon of mass-murder, Kurt Gerstein made the most morally praiseworthy choice he could have; he maintained his post within the SS and endeavored to combat the misuse of his creation. It was through no fault of his that Zyclon was used in such a reprehensible way, as his intentions were good.
After learning of what was happening, he had several choices. Simply ignoring what was happening would have been morally wrong, as he would have sat by and watched the murders continue. His other option was to work against the SS and try to stop the killing. Attempting to do so by directly attacking the regime would have been fruitless, as such disloyalty would most likely have met with death. Leaving the SS would have been morally right from the standpoint of disassociating himself from the group responsible, but it also would be a risk to himself and his family, thus preventing him from taking action to stop what was happening. Thus, Gerstein’s decision to remain within the SS and covertly attempt to undermine the holocaust left him in a position from which he could actually try to make progress. However, in order to maintain this position, it he had to continue to work so as to retain his trusted standing within the organization; his hands would be dirty from these acts regardless of any gains he made against the murder.
From this position, Gerstein tried as best he could and with honorable intentions to prevent his discovery from being used in such a heinous manner. Sadly, all of the things he tried to stop or slow the killings were either ineffective or actually succeeded in making the situation worse. In this case, the ‘luck’ of the situation painted his actions as being morally bad, regardless of his intentions. This in mind, it is not right to say that Gerstein acted in a morally wrong way, only that his actions had results that were morally bad; there was no way for him to achieve results that were morally good.
After learning of what was happening, he had several choices. Simply ignoring what was happening would have been morally wrong, as he would have sat by and watched the murders continue. His other option was to work against the SS and try to stop the killing. Attempting to do so by directly attacking the regime would have been fruitless, as such disloyalty would most likely have met with death. Leaving the SS would have been morally right from the standpoint of disassociating himself from the group responsible, but it also would be a risk to himself and his family, thus preventing him from taking action to stop what was happening. Thus, Gerstein’s decision to remain within the SS and covertly attempt to undermine the holocaust left him in a position from which he could actually try to make progress. However, in order to maintain this position, it he had to continue to work so as to retain his trusted standing within the organization; his hands would be dirty from these acts regardless of any gains he made against the murder.
From this position, Gerstein tried as best he could and with honorable intentions to prevent his discovery from being used in such a heinous manner. Sadly, all of the things he tried to stop or slow the killings were either ineffective or actually succeeded in making the situation worse. In this case, the ‘luck’ of the situation painted his actions as being morally bad, regardless of his intentions. This in mind, it is not right to say that Gerstein acted in a morally wrong way, only that his actions had results that were morally bad; there was no way for him to achieve results that were morally good.
posted by Kelly Sorensen at 5:22 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home