ASSIGNMENT

But first, let us free ourselves from a quite trivial falsification: namely, that ethics may first appear in a morally highly compromised role. Let us consider examples. Rarely will you find that a man whose love turns from one woman to another feels no need to legitimate this before himself by saying: she was not worthy of my love, or, she has disappointed me, or whatever other like 'reasons' exist. This is an attitude that, with a profound lack of chivalry, adds a fancied 'legitimacy' to the plain fact that he no longer loves her and that the woman has to bear it. By virtue of this 'legitimation,' the man claims a right for himself and besides causing the misfortune seeks to put her in the wrong. The successful amatory competitor proceeds exactly in the same way: namely, the opponent must be less worthy, otherwise he would not have lost out. It is no different, of course, if after a victorious war the victor in undignified self-righteousness claims, 'I have won because I was right.' Or, if somebody under the frightfulness of war collapses psychologically, and instead of simply saying it was just too much, he feels the need of legitimizing his war weariness to himself by substituting the feeling, 'I could not bear it because I had to fight for a morally bad cause.' And likewise with the defeated in war. Instead of searching like old women for the 'guilty one' after the war--in a situation in which the structure of society produced the war--everyone with a manly and controlled attitude would tell the enemy, 'We lost the war. You have won it. That is now all over. Now let us discuss what conclusions must be drawn according to the objective interests that came into play and what is the main thing in view of the responsibility towards the future which above all burdens the victor.' Anything else is undignified and will become a boomerang. A nation forgives if its interests have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has been offended, especially by a bigoted self-righteousness. Every new document that comes to light after decades revives the undignified lamentations, the hatred and scorn, instead of allowing the war at its end to be buried, at least morally. This is possible only through objectivity and chivalry and above all only through dignity. But never is it possible through an 'ethic,' which in truth signifies a lack of dignity on both sides. Instead of being concerned about what the politician is interested in, the future and the responsibility towards the future, this ethic is concerned about politically sterile questions of past guilt, which are not to be settled politically. To act in this way is politically guilty, if such guilt exists at all. And it overlooks the unavoidable falsification of the whole problem, through very material interests: namely, the victor's interest in the greatest possible moral and material gain; the hopes of the defeated to trade in advantages through confessions of guilt. If anything is 'vulgar,' then, this is, and it is the result of this fashion of exploiting 'ethics' as a means of 'being in the right.'

There is more to being right than just being right. This was my first thought after reading this passage. It thoroughly explains the use of morals, ethics and objectivity. People tend to use their morals as an excuse as to why they did or didn't do something. There is a point that is stressed that you can't justify doing something wrong by blaming someone else. And there is also the distinction that morals have nothing to do with facts. Ethics are used in way that focuses on the facts of the past meaning there is questionable behavior on the part of the questioned. With this becoming the focus point, the objective is lost. Which leads way to the part where having objectivity is discussed. Being objective helps both parties prepare for the future.

I really liked this saying besides the overall quote " A nation forgives if its interests have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has been offended." This reminds me of the way the world treated Germany after World War I. Essentially, France, Britain and Russia wanted to humiliate Germany. Their honor had been offended because they gained a bad reputation as being the aggressor. You can see this resentment and anger during World War II when Hitler comes into power. You can say that France, Britain and Russia were so bent on being ethically correct by punishing Germany that neither of this countries could see into the future. The only country that was being objective at this time was the United States or more so Woodrow Wilson, who in his Fourteen Point plan warned these countries not to strip Germany of their pride. This is an example of what he was trying to say.