We most commonly think of ethics as a sort of personal-individual analysis of right versus wrong. The individual is pressed with a dilemma and then decides to act upon their own subjective idea of what it right and wrong – but this is the most vulgar idea of ethics. I personally adhere to Zizek’s brutal idea about what a true approach to ethics is. In Zizek’s thought, a true ethics is not based on either a question of right versus wrong, but what needs to be done for the good of the other – based on the objective need and not a subjective battle of wills.
Zizek uses a similar example to this one to demonstrate his point on ethics:
There is a beautiful young German girl who tends after local children and is known to be very friendly and cordial with those children. One day a train taking Jews to a concentration camp passes by her town. She happens to live near the train station and is taking a walk, along with the children she regularly looks after. The Jewish children on the train are all starving and are in desperate need of water. The beautiful young girl has both at her immediate disposal. She takes some bread in one hand and water in the other and proceeds toward the train. She stops abrubtly. All the Jewish children are crying out for her attention. Before she gets to the train she eats the bread and drinks the water in full view of all the Jewish prisoners, as well as in front of the children she is caring for. She then gives a Nazi salute to the train and walks back to the children she is attending. She then goes back to her home thinking she has acted in the appropriate manner. Two of the children she is watching over slip away from her and proceed to the tool shed. They grab a full bottle of acid. The two children proceed back to the young girl and they throw the entire bottle of acid directly into the face of the beautiful girl. She is horribly injured and disfigured, but she lives. The two children admit their behaviour to the local authorities and explain why they acted in this way.
The two children who avenged the Jewish prisoners acted in the right way, i.e. ethically speaking, as brutal as it may sound. They acted in the right way because they performed a necessary act for the good of the community. The punishment the young German girl received for her atrocious behaviour was not equal to the deaths of the Jewish prisoners but the disfigured face of the young girl stands as a powerful symbol to those around her; those who normalized her ideas. No, this is not an ethics for everyone but it is an ethics that deals with the necessary, and this is the important thought.
Here is a similar example to follow:
You hate one of your co-workers for very sound reasons; i.e. a true hatred in all senses of the word with no delusions about the character of the other person, or yourself. It is a cold winters night and you are driving on a dark empty street. You see an individual person in the distance and their car is stuck in a massive snowbank. This person is desperately trying to get the car out of the snowbank. You get closer and notice that it is the co-worker whom you despise. You stop, get out of your car, and lend a helping hand. The car is freed. You immediately walk away and offer no words and accept none in return. The next day at work you make no mention of the act and forget about the kindness. You still despise your co-worker with great intensity.
This is a true ethics and it is one that I can support. You do what is absolutely necessary for the good of the community and/or the other rather than what is perceived to be right. You act and do not need to think about the action before hand. You do what is necessary for the good of the other.
“No, this is not an ethics for everyone but it is an ethics that deals with the necessary” (Johnny)
Define ‘the neccesary’? I pretty much agree with many aspects of the concept in regards to ‘justice’…but even justice has the concept of mercy within it.
Was disfiguring the girl the best step for justice? Maybe. Maybe not. What each person percieves as ‘just’ or ‘neccesary’ is going to range and change.
For example, I support the death penalty in many cases since I can see a ‘just’ reason for it. However, each case is different and I cannot see a blanket way to apply the death penalty. Even with such a law I see range.
What is ‘necessary’ has already been defined quite adequately above in the discussion: ‘necessary’ is what is absolutely needed, i.e. for the good/benefit of the other (even if the other will never witness or understand this ethical behaviour).
There are basically 2 types of needs: universal and individual-momentary. Universal needs are the easy ones, i.e. food, shelter, clothing, water, perhaps love, etc…, but individual needs come and go by scenario and are defined by the moment and the individual, not a universality. This is why this type of ethics is plausible, becuase individual scenarios differ on a case by case basis and this ethics is prepared for what is needed at that moment, not what is desired. This ethics decides very quickly what is the need at hand and it is prepared to act appropriately.
I would have to argue that the first example was a universal issue since there was an outright denial of a univesal need for those that absolutely needed it, and this denial sparked the reaction (which had a symbolic conclusion, i.e, the girl was disfigured, an atrocity, to represent the conditions that created her behaviour). But the second is a simple individual momentary need.
But of course, this discussion has nothing to do with legal terms and what is ‘justice’ and what is not (that is far too subjective and morally-based and inherently involves the state). I am talking about a personal ethics, as is Zizek, and this ethics has potential to become a communal ethics if accepted by all members. We are not dealing with any morality or a legal code of conduct ratified by the state. We are dealing with a plain and simple ethics. Brutality included, if need be for the good of the other and/or community.
“‘necessary’ is what is absolutely needed” (Johnny)
It’s still quite subjective though. What one see’s as a neccesary response to a scenario (ie: acid in the face) another may see as quite over the line of decency. So neccesary is a sliding scale depending on who’s perspective is being used…because what is ‘absolutely’ needed may not actually be the act one does.
“I am talking about a personal ethics, as is Zizek, and this ethics has potential to become a communal ethics if accepted by all members” (Johnny)
If we are talking about a personal ethic, it’s most verifiably a sliding scale that changes with each person and their thresholds. However, if we talk about community ethics, we are talking about ‘justice’ and ‘law’…since everyone in the community would have to abide by the concensus they set forth on issues.
I get the symbolism of the acid incident – but that does nothing to deal with the problem (ie: Nazi extermination of Jews). All the lady did was follow the ‘communal ethic’ of Germany – which was an enforced law. Now how is she determine her actions were ‘wrong’ when the society around her supports such actions?
“It’s still quite subjective though.”
This is false. The ethic would only be subjective if it were thoroughly based on my wants, desires, passions, lusts, etc. But the ethic is thoroughly based in the needs of the other, which are empirically objective. Universal and individual-momentary needs are objective and are very plain to observe in their objective existence. The ethic does not ask “what do I get from this act” it asks “what does the other receive, i.e. objectively”
Needs are very easy to observe, we see them all day long. poverty, hunger, giving up a seat on the bus, etc… This is the ethic at work = taking action for the good of the other, in place of the other if need be, and this is the aspect you are missing in your analysis. The good of the other is the emphasis of the ethic and not what I perceive to be right or wrong in a scenario.
The ethic is individual but has the scope to help with communal needs and in this aspect it is communal. Some objective needs are communally based. If the ethic were to be incorporated by all members then it would become a moral code and go beyond an ethic so in this sense I spoke too soon, but you get the idea.
“All the lady did was follow the ‘communal ethic’ of Germany – which was an enforced law. Now how is she determine her actions were ‘wrong’ when the society around her supports such actions?”
This is also a falsity and it is a scary position to hold. The woman was folowing a code of conduct, sure, but she did not have to follow this code even it was imposed by law. She could have been one of those that protested, which millions did. This is the Eichmann defence “I was only follwing orders, I was unaware, I was not in charge, I was a soldier, etc… This idea is atrocious and is a legitimization for immoral behaviour. Every war criminal and genocide-participant has utilized this defence and it is not an explanaiton for their participation.
Why did the two children not also act the same way the woman did, they lived in the same society and under the same law? Because their ethics were in line with their behaviour. The children could not free the Jewish prisoners from their end but they could act according to their ethics. They witnessed an atrocious act that they were unable to prevent but they knew who was objectively at fault and they acted objectively. Is this a universal case, no it is merely a hypothetical to demonstrate a point about what is a true ethics.
“Universal and individual-momentary needs are objective and are very plain to observe in their objective existence. The ethic does not ask “what do I get from this act” it asks “what does the other receive, i.e. objectively”” (Johnny)
‘What does the other receive’ is an internal question coming from the subjective experience of the person doing the action. Does the lady deserve the acid in the face per se? Is this the only action that would of sufficed? There is an objectivity in ‘what the other receives as well’…because how do we know the outcome of our action to the other achieves its desired end? We don’t (as far as I know; but we can hope).
“This is the Eichmann defence” (Johnny)
True. However it does reveal something about ethics, what is most important to a person…their life or that of another? In the case of the woman who shunned the Jews on the train, she likely did it for her safety (her motivation was for herself and her safety). This ‘Eichmann defence’ is the basic army defence of lower ranked positions that take orders from higher positions (ie: do as they are told or face the consequences of insubordination). Punishment is then given by the higher authority to the lower authority. In this sense, the woman’ actions were ‘selfish’ – to save herself and not be seen as a ‘compatriot’ to the Jews on the train. Just saying is all.
“‘What does the other receive’ is an internal question coming from the subjective experience of the person doing the action”
No, this is a falsity, again. In order for the ‘other’ to even receive anything you (as the viewer) must first KNOW what they NEED, which is empirically obvious. e.g. – someone needs a boost for their car in the winter, someone needs a door opened for them when their hands are full, someone needs water, food, a place to sleep, a jacket, etc… These needs are all easy observeable to the naked eye and in no way are they subjective, agreed?
So then if these needs are not subjective, which they are not, then how is the action (based upon aiding the one in need) subjective? It is not. The ethic would only be subjective if I did not empirically know the need and I then made it up in my own head. But that is not what the ethic is meant to do.
What the other receives is an objective response and solution to their objective need and not what I merely perceive to be their need. I do not perceive the need, I know the need.
“These needs are all easy observeable to the naked eye and in no way are they subjective, agreed?” (Johnny)
Yes, in general I do agree. The basics are solving the obvious needs (ie: food and shelter). However, behind those obvious needs there my be more that can be added (or given)…like how to find a job, use the housing market to get a home, how to budget, educational opportunities, etc.
“I do not perceive the need, I know the need” (Johnny)
I agree, in general…most needs are fairly obvious and the how to meet them part as well. I get the need and response part. However, I still some subjectivity (as mentioned above) when each need is delved into deeper as to why it is happening (ie: hunger or need for shelter). In the case of the flat tire, well helping them is really all that can be done (which is a more of a smaller occurence with less trickiness to it).
But back to the acid in the face scenario…that’s quite subjective in one’s response…agreed?
“But back to the acid in the face scenario…that’s quite subjective in one’s response…agreed?”
Not at all. You are focusing on something that is quite trivial to the scenario as it was given. The children empirically witnessed an atrocious act, i.e. an objective act (regardless of ideological bias). They witnessed the outright denial of some basic needs, concerning the other. The chidren responded in an ethical manner and they responded in an objective manner. They repaid in kind the atrocity of the beautiful young woman. They could have killed her and it would have been the ethical thing to do; and it would have been an act based purely in objectivity.
Now, could they have had a debate about what they had just witnessed? Yes. But any action they decided to take would still be objective and not purely subjective. Why? Because they did not interpret or mentally perceive that the young woman hated Jewish children. They empirically witnessed the depths of how severe the young woman hated Jewish people and they witnessed her objective actions. The children knew she denied them a basic need, they did not merely interpret this knowledge, and they knew how to respond ethically.
It would be a subjective act if they simply threw the acid in her face because they felt like it, or simply did not like her as a caretaker, or some other mental notion. But they were witnesses to her atrocity and they acted on this empirical knowledge; this is why it is objective. They did not burst into action for the sake of action.
“But they were witnesses to her atrocity and they acted on this empirical knowledge; this is why it is objective. They did not burst into action for the sake of action” (Johnny)
I get the reason they reacted – no problem there – they seen and witnessed something that was plain horrible and the person was getting away with it. I can sympathize there.
My issue with the scenario is acid is not going to change anything – except for the disfiguring of a beautiful person (by the account of the story she was pretty). That woman would still be racist don’t ya think? Or would the acid have melted that animosity out of her?
She may have did what she did because there was no punishment, but this is usually not the case. I have seen people that are racist be beat up, they some up racist even after such punishment.
So my issue is with the acid as the ‘answer’ to the ‘problem’ shown by the woman with her treatment of people. I am not totally convinced that kind of punishment exactly changes anything (except for this girl’s physical appearance).
You have trapped yourself into 2 corners with this line of thought:
1. You have locked yourself in a tautology. Where all premises are equivalents to each other, or are equally true as statements, or are just mere repetitions of what is being said. You are adding hypothetical conclusions onto a hypothetical example. This is a tautology with no logical conclusion, as the hypothetical answers you seek can exist in perpetuity.
2. You have added a strict subjective moral reading to the hypothetical example of the ethic.
The point of the examples were not to demonstrate what is subjectively the right or wrong action, what is the ‘answer’ as you see it, and if you strictly read it this way then you nullify the role of the ethic. The scenarios are merely examples dealing with the ethic and its place in action. The chidren did not betray their ethics and this is the point of the story; as well as showing what is a true ethics. The examples merely point out how the ethic responded to what is the necessary in the moment.
In example #1 a punishment was necessary and it was given, and in example #2 a generosity was necessary and it was given. Large-scale (formal) morality, answers, and/or justice have no place in the role of a personal ethic. The personal ethic is a system of values upon which you base a code of conduct, i.e. individually.
Veganism is an ethic but not for everyone, freeganism is an ethic but not for everyone, environmentalism is an ethic but not for everyone, straight-edge is an ethic but not for everyone, etc. These are not moralities, or even ‘answers’, they are personal codes of conduct and they determine actions in given situations.
I see a need and I can act, so I act. This is the ethic in its essence. Perhaps the act is a brutal one but as long as it is a necessary one then it fits the ethic.
“as the hypothetical answers you seek can exist in perpetuity” (Johnny)
True, since it is hypothetical.
“The scenarios are merely examples dealing with the ethic and its place in action” (Johnny)
And I can see that pretty clearly – but you know me – what good is an ethic that has not baseline morality inherent to fence out actions deemed questionable and fence in choices that meet a certain standard. It may be over stretching the point concerning the ethic – granted.
“Perhaps the act is a brutal one but as long as it is a necessary one then it fits the ethic.” (Johnny)
Then I do think part of the point I am making does stand concerning the ethic, it’s morality (it’s integrity in some ways). What good is that ethic in a community if it take no stance on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior…it breeds a sort of autonomous anarchy.
“Then I do think part of the point I am making does stand concerning the ethic, it’s morality (it’s integrity in some ways). What good is that ethic in a community if it take no stance on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior…it breeds a sort of autonomous anarchy”
Whose ‘morality’ are you looking for? Which morality is the answer? These are your questions to answer, not the ethic.
There is not an ethic in the world that can answer these questions for you. Ethics is just a basis for personal conduct in a given scenario. This ethic is simply a basic response to needs and the necessary, communal and personal. The ethic certainly does take a stance on behaviour, it is rooted in objectivity, but it does not presuppose that it is morally superior in its subjectivity. This is not the role of an ethic. Moral superiority is the symptom which all competing moral positions suffer from.
Ethics is not morality.
Zizek argues for ethics withouth a big other. You are simply using “the needs of the other” as the big other which justifies all atrocities. Is it not the case that zizek is here opposed?
The other has different needs, what other, what happens when there is two conflicting needs of others. You are too quick to assume that we can tell what the other wants. This is not the case, as zizek writes, in the sublime object of ideology the fundamental question is “che voui” what does the other want from me, what am i to him. This is an abyss that zizek has no answer to.
Second, what needs of the other must you fulfill. Simply where is the line. Kids in africa are starving now should we dedicate our life to satisfy their needs (zizek again is here opposed). If your hated co-worker needs two eyes or else he would go blind do you donate yours?