I think both men are examples of a very specific type of person. I think there are people in this world who identify a problem or a need and simply set out to fix it, and then there are others who choose to ignore it, or concede to the belief that the problem is too big for them to fix alone. I think there are some who are simply cowards. Creating change is rarely easy, and standing up against a superpower to fight for your beliefs when the penalty is your life is beyond difficult. However, in both of these films, I saw courage that I quickly identified with my own Jesuit education.
Being taught to place others above one's own self-interest is not an easy lesson. Those who gave into the Nazi regime may have been good people, but their own fears and self-interest allowed them to lose sight of the greater good. While I don't believe everyone should have a desire to be a martyr, I think it is much more noble to stand up for what is right, and potentially face unfortunate consequences, than to side with evil in order to achieve self-preservation.
I like your post. I do believe both Schindler and Wallenberg were men of power who used their influence to save the lives of many. However I do not believe that at least in the case of Schindler, he put the interests of others before his own.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I would like to argue that it was his self interest of finding cheap labor to power his ammunition plant that put him in contact with the many jews he would later go on to save. Self interest is not always a means to a violent purpose.
After all isn't altruism helpful even if it is ultimately promoted by ones self interest?
Interesting to hear a strong opinion about this topic of self-preservation over moral dilemma. And what we saw last week was the idea of self-preservation regardless of where that path leads. In Good, it led to John Halder's the justification of the deaths of many Jews. This would most likely have happen with or without Halder's compliance. But the fact that it was him put the weight on his shoulders. In Bent, Max's self-preservation led to the death of his loved ones. There deaths would have occurred sooner or later despite Max's action or lack of action. But in Schindler's List and Good Evening, Mr. Wallenberg there are two people who take action for the good, and in doing so, make a difference and save a few lives. Their actions I wouldn't consider maryterdom, but neither were they concerned with self-preservation. Instead they saw injustice in the world and sought to correct it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you and Keller; self interest, fear, and desire to survive really do influence most people in times of crisis.
ReplyDeleteI really do like this post. I must admit that at first I thought Schindler had put the Jews before his own self interest toward the end of the war, but now I am starting to doubt it. After reading a lot of other posts maybe I was being too optimistic about Schindler's deeds. In the end, he did save some Jews, but what was his motive? Was it only because he would be cheaper to employ Jews in his factories? Hm...
ReplyDelete