Political Economist

The followings are the summary of various responses to Simon's dilemma. As I already posted, this essay is based on the review of the book, The Sunflower.

(1) Jean Amery

Jean Amery was born in Vienna. He is a European critic and essayist. After German’s invasion and the proclamation of the Nuremberg Laws, he fled from his native country and joined the Resistance movement in Belgium. Due to this activity, he was captured by the Gestapo and sent to concentration camps. After the liberation, he wrote a book based on his personal experiences as a Holocaust victim and survivor.

He starts his essay by expressing his best regards to Simon for his continuous investigative activities as a commission member for investigation of NAZI crimes. At the same time, Amery explains his distinctive position, as one who does not have any moral authority to judge Simon’s behaviors, as a survivor from the concentration camp. He also wants his opinion to be understood as a private one with no significant influence on others. With these preliminary introductions, Amery argues that the question of forgiveness has two different aspects in this case: a psychological one and a political aspect.

Firstly, for him, whether to forgive Karl or not was dependent on various accidental factors which might influence Simon at such particular situations. If Simon, for example, had chances to meet one of decent SS mans who treated him relatively more gently than those of other typical SS soldiers, his decision might have been different. In this way, psychologically speaking, whether Simon should forgive Karl or not does not pose any serious moral question.

Secondly, Amery also argues that forgiving or not-forgiving is quite an irrelevant question, because this question belongs to the realm of theology or morality. Thus, the question as such does not pose any serious dilemma once we reject any metaphysics of morality and religious principles.

Amery himself want to see the whole question only in this political perspective. Thus, for him, the question simply does not exist. There is no metaphysical norm or morality upon which Simon’s attitudes can be evaluated.

However, does not this argument avoid moral questions Simon wants to discuss by shifting it to another terrain? With respect to this probable doubt, Amery said “no.” As a previous Restistance activist and as a firm advocate of political justice, he recommends that we should leave Simon’s dilemma (“the moral-theological, moral-philosophical” question of forgiveness) in the hands of professional philosophers and university professors.

In this way, Amery assures Simon not to bother himself with this metaphysical question. Even if Simon forgave the dying SS man at that time, according to Amery, nobody can blame Simon.

In my opinion, however, Jean Amery’s simple solution to the problem is not sufficient for Simon’s dilemma, because Amery’s political perspective is simply to transpose the question into another terrain. It is not the solution to Simon’s moral questions but only recommendations for self-assurance.

(2) Mark Goulden

Mark Goulden was a British journalist and publisher. After introducing his moral judgement on atrocities and inhumanity, Goulden asserts that nobody has “the privilege of granting forgiveness.”

This does not mean that we should ascribe the question of forgiveness to the realm of divinity. Rather, he criticizes any attempt to close down the dialogues about forgiveness by saying that only God can forgive. Instead, he expresses his own opinion saying that “if the dead cannot forgive, neither can the living.” He goes on “How can you forgive monsters who burned people alive in public?”

With respect to Simon’s dilemma, he does not hesitate to say that, if he were Simon, “I would have silently left the deathbed having made quite certain there was now one Nazi less in the world!” even though he admits the possibility that the answer may be different from person to person.

Will Simon accept or agree with Goulden’s attitude? From a personal aspect, as Goulden agrees, there is no single answer to the question. Thus, nobody can blame Simon’s decision. From a political perspective, Simon will surely agree with Goulden’s opinions that every citizen should fight against inhumanity and brutal crimes.