Critical Response to: Taking pause for Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will of Nazi Germany
In the author's notes for this article Ken, you write, "Surely we are accountable for what we do, but doesn't that depend on whose side we give our allegiance, and who is in control and domination at the time?" This question is similar to the question raised by Dietrich von Bonhoeffer. Upon leaving his post at Union Theological Seminary and returning to Germany, Bonhoeffer wrote:
“The man of conscience, says Bonhoeffer, is torn between difficult choices, “becomes timid”, and chooses to bandage his conscience with lies so that he may avoid despair. Though it would seem as though duty would bring decisiveness to the “multiplicity of possible decisions”, duty itself cannot lead to an ethical choice, because the burden of responsibility lies, in the end, with its giver and not with its receiver and executioner. “The man of duty,” says Bonhoeffer, “will end by having to fulfil [sic] his obligation even to the devil” (Ethiks 5).
This however is a philosophical dispute and Ken's article is not about philosophy; it is an article about artistic excellence. There is no question that Leni Rienfenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" is a powerful piece of propaganda and a masterful documentary of the goals of the Third Reich. The topic of this article is the quality of Rienfenstahl's work not its intended purpose. It is clear to me that Ken's intent in writing this article is to encourage critical thinking among his readership. His intent is not to make an endorsement of the evil genocidal acts of the Nazi regime.
kbm, you accuse Ken of moral relativism. The way Ken states the question at hand makes it difficult to see that what he describes is not a moral relativism, but a duty ethics which is grounded in an objective, not a subjective reality, namely, in the person or organization giving the command or issuing the law. kbm, your name calling is scholastically objectionable. Comments should be focused on the article and not its author. It is most likely that all you know of Ken is the articles which he writes; therefore, it remains my firm conviction that you know him not at all.
To read Ken's article please follow this link.
"I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I will have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people…. Christians in Germany will face the terrible alternative of either willing the defeat of their nation in order that Christian civilization may survive, or willing the victory of their nation and thereby destroying our civilization" (Gesammelte Schriften 1:320).In the question you pose, you have two premises which you try to aim toward the same end; however, these premises are contradictory and therefore cannot have the same end. Our accountability as individuals can never rest merely in obligation or duty to an authority to whom we have given our allegiance. In the end, we are always free to choose our actions. As Bonhoeffer argues, an ethics based on duty (the ethics which is the modus operandi of any totalitarian state or military organization) does not free man from individual moral accountability.
“The man of conscience, says Bonhoeffer, is torn between difficult choices, “becomes timid”, and chooses to bandage his conscience with lies so that he may avoid despair. Though it would seem as though duty would bring decisiveness to the “multiplicity of possible decisions”, duty itself cannot lead to an ethical choice, because the burden of responsibility lies, in the end, with its giver and not with its receiver and executioner. “The man of duty,” says Bonhoeffer, “will end by having to fulfil [sic] his obligation even to the devil” (Ethiks 5).
This however is a philosophical dispute and Ken's article is not about philosophy; it is an article about artistic excellence. There is no question that Leni Rienfenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" is a powerful piece of propaganda and a masterful documentary of the goals of the Third Reich. The topic of this article is the quality of Rienfenstahl's work not its intended purpose. It is clear to me that Ken's intent in writing this article is to encourage critical thinking among his readership. His intent is not to make an endorsement of the evil genocidal acts of the Nazi regime.
kbm, you accuse Ken of moral relativism. The way Ken states the question at hand makes it difficult to see that what he describes is not a moral relativism, but a duty ethics which is grounded in an objective, not a subjective reality, namely, in the person or organization giving the command or issuing the law. kbm, your name calling is scholastically objectionable. Comments should be focused on the article and not its author. It is most likely that all you know of Ken is the articles which he writes; therefore, it remains my firm conviction that you know him not at all.
To read Ken's article please follow this link.
Works Cited
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Ethics. Trans. Neville Horton Smith. Ed. Eberhard Bethge. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1964.
---. Letters and Papers from Prison. Trans. Reginald H. Fuller. Ed. Ebhard Bethge. New York: The MacMillan Co., 1965.
LaRive, Ken M. “Taking pause for Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will of Nazi Germany.” The National Examiner. 27 Jan 2010,
Mengus, Raymond. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Decision to Resist.” The Journal of Modern History 64 Supplement: “Resistance Against the Third Reich” (1992): S134-S146.
Comments
Post a Comment
No emotivists allowed! Be rational or don't comment, its that simple.