Schindler’s List is a film based on the true story of Austrian industrialist Oskar Schindler. Responsible for saving over 1,100 Polish Jews during the Second World War by using them as labor in is kitchenware factory. As the film opens, you get a glimpse of the suave businessman bent on making a fortune as a war profiteer off the backs of Polish slave labor. Initially, Schindler jumps at the chance to exploit cheap Jewish labor in his factory (knowing full and well this is morally wrong) However, as the war drags on, Schindler finds himself confronted with the near certain death of the Jews at the hand of the Nazi’s. You can see a shift in his motives from greedy war profiteer to concerned humanitarian. As a high ranking member
…show more content…
“The first philosopher to ask why one should be moral was Plato. He came to the conclusion that humans only do the right thing because we fear will be caught and punished. If we however did what we wanted, without fear of being found out, we would leave all ethical principles and set about pursuing our self-interests” (Falzon, 2007). On the surface Plato’s theory seems to go against the motive driving Oscar Schindler. In fact, it seems downright contrary to what Plato felt was the motivation to be moral. Schindler turned into a humanitarian at the risk of being caught and most certainly executed, not because he feared he would be caught and punished but in spite of it. I suppose one could also argue that moral relativism concerns varying differences in moral decision across cultural, racial and religious lines. In 1940’s Germany the culture was of a blatant distrust and dislike of the Jewish people. This propaganda was spread by the Nazi Party of which Oscar Schindler was a high ranking member. My ultimate point being, if Schindler was surrounded by and a key member in the party that supported this moral behavior, lying and going against the party line according to Plato, despite his good intentions was …show more content…
I know that seems rather hard to imagine given the burden of risk he assumed and the financial sacrifice he made to save so many people from certain death. However, “One of the biggest controversies over deontological ethics is Kant 's view of lying. Immanuel Kant see 's lying as immoral, without exception. A famous example that many people have an issue with, is Kant 's response to hiding Jews. Kant said that even to a Nazi soldier, you should tell the truth” (Prezi). Again, it seems preposterous that lying to a group of ruthless sociopaths in order to save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children would diminish in any way Schindler’e efforts. Kant is very clear on this point, almost to the point that any moral behavior would have to exist in a near perfect vacuum. “Kant’s example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant’s philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined. The problem is that Kant seems to say that it is always wrong to lie—even to a murderer asking for the whereabouts of his victim—and that if one does lie and despite one’s good intentions the lie leads to the murderer’s capture of the victim, then the liar is partially responsible for the killing of the victim.” (Varden
“The first philosopher to ask why one should be moral was Plato. He came to the conclusion that humans only do the right thing because we fear will be caught and punished. If we however did what we wanted, without fear of being found out, we would leave all ethical principles and set about pursuing our self-interests” (Falzon, 2007). On the surface Plato’s theory seems to go against the motive driving Oscar Schindler. In fact, it seems downright contrary to what Plato felt was the motivation to be moral. Schindler turned into a humanitarian at the risk of being caught and most certainly executed, not because he feared he would be caught and punished but in spite of it. I suppose one could also argue that moral relativism concerns varying differences in moral decision across cultural, racial and religious lines. In 1940’s Germany the culture was of a blatant distrust and dislike of the Jewish people. This propaganda was spread by the Nazi Party of which Oscar Schindler was a high ranking member. My ultimate point being, if Schindler was surrounded by and a key member in the party that supported this moral behavior, lying and going against the party line according to Plato, despite his good intentions was …show more content…
I know that seems rather hard to imagine given the burden of risk he assumed and the financial sacrifice he made to save so many people from certain death. However, “One of the biggest controversies over deontological ethics is Kant 's view of lying. Immanuel Kant see 's lying as immoral, without exception. A famous example that many people have an issue with, is Kant 's response to hiding Jews. Kant said that even to a Nazi soldier, you should tell the truth” (Prezi). Again, it seems preposterous that lying to a group of ruthless sociopaths in order to save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children would diminish in any way Schindler’e efforts. Kant is very clear on this point, almost to the point that any moral behavior would have to exist in a near perfect vacuum. “Kant’s example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant’s philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined. The problem is that Kant seems to say that it is always wrong to lie—even to a murderer asking for the whereabouts of his victim—and that if one does lie and despite one’s good intentions the lie leads to the murderer’s capture of the victim, then the liar is partially responsible for the killing of the victim.” (Varden