Non-Killing as the Primary Act

O. Zubets
{"title":"Non-Killing as the Primary Act","authors":"O. Zubets","doi":"10.21146/2074-4870-2021-21-2-48-61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Morality, being understood as a form of value-normative regulation, as a set of norms, com­mandments, ideas, was actively involved in the mechanics of Auschwitz. One of the key concepts of Nazi morality is “humane” killing: the Nazis’ understanding of it as “humane” is connected with an idea of fighting evil, with the fact that its performer morally justifies and motivates it (with the good of others, including the victim), with a method of its realisa­tion, which should be merciful towards both the killer and his victim. In Nazi morality, the “virtuous” person takes the decision to kill on the basis of moral ideology; killing as an ac­tual action, as a given one, turns out to be outside of morality. They reproduce the mistake of Adam, who took the words of god’s truth for a commandment, a law, which is described by Spinoza. Criticizing the single-level position of moral commandments, the author comes to the conclusion that Auschwitz is opposed not by the commandment, not by the moral prohi­bition “Thou shalt not kill”, but by non-killing as an act. Philosophy, having emphasized the fundamental nature of human mortality, is forced by Auschwitz to place the concept of killing at the center and postulate the givenness of non-killing as a primary act – outside of verbal expression, consideration, distinction: as the beginning that makes the language, the thinking and the individual as an acting human possible. This means a turn of moral philoso­phy: from the substantive development of moral ideology and the specification of morality through the nuance of motives, norms and values – back to the givenness of an act, which excludes the differentiation of killing on moral grounds. The act of non-killing is not medi­ated by morality, it is not defined by the fact that killing is evil, but the very fact that it is evil follows from the primacy of the act of not committing killing, from the decision not to kill given in the act of non-killing. Moral philosophy itself is conceived by the author as the thinking of the one who does not kill.","PeriodicalId":360102,"journal":{"name":"Ethical Thought","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethical Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2021-21-2-48-61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Morality, being understood as a form of value-normative regulation, as a set of norms, com­mandments, ideas, was actively involved in the mechanics of Auschwitz. One of the key concepts of Nazi morality is “humane” killing: the Nazis’ understanding of it as “humane” is connected with an idea of fighting evil, with the fact that its performer morally justifies and motivates it (with the good of others, including the victim), with a method of its realisa­tion, which should be merciful towards both the killer and his victim. In Nazi morality, the “virtuous” person takes the decision to kill on the basis of moral ideology; killing as an ac­tual action, as a given one, turns out to be outside of morality. They reproduce the mistake of Adam, who took the words of god’s truth for a commandment, a law, which is described by Spinoza. Criticizing the single-level position of moral commandments, the author comes to the conclusion that Auschwitz is opposed not by the commandment, not by the moral prohi­bition “Thou shalt not kill”, but by non-killing as an act. Philosophy, having emphasized the fundamental nature of human mortality, is forced by Auschwitz to place the concept of killing at the center and postulate the givenness of non-killing as a primary act – outside of verbal expression, consideration, distinction: as the beginning that makes the language, the thinking and the individual as an acting human possible. This means a turn of moral philoso­phy: from the substantive development of moral ideology and the specification of morality through the nuance of motives, norms and values – back to the givenness of an act, which excludes the differentiation of killing on moral grounds. The act of non-killing is not medi­ated by morality, it is not defined by the fact that killing is evil, but the very fact that it is evil follows from the primacy of the act of not committing killing, from the decision not to kill given in the act of non-killing. Moral philosophy itself is conceived by the author as the thinking of the one who does not kill.
不杀戮是首要行为
道德,被理解为价值规范的一种形式,作为一套规范,命令,观念,积极地参与了奥斯维辛的机制。纳粹道德的关键概念之一是“人道”的杀戮:纳粹对“人道”的理解与一种与邪恶作斗争的想法有关,与这样一个事实有关:它的表演者在道德上证明并激励了它(与他人的利益有关,包括受害者),与它的实现方法有关,这种方法应该对凶手和受害者都仁慈。在纳粹道德中,“有道德”的人在道德意识形态的基础上做出杀人的决定;杀戮作为一种实际的行为,作为一种给定的行为,被证明是不道德的。他们重复了亚当的错误,亚当把上帝的真理当成了斯宾诺莎所描述的戒律和法则。作者批判了道德戒律的单一层次立场,得出结论:反对奥斯维辛的不是戒律,不是“你不应该杀人”的道德禁令,而是不杀人作为一种行为。哲学,强调了人类死亡的基本本质,被奥斯维辛强迫将杀戮的概念置于中心,并假定非杀戮是一种主要行为——在口头表达、考虑、区分之外:作为使语言、思维和个体作为人类行为成为可能的开端。这意味着道德哲学的转向:从道德意识形态的实质性发展和通过动机、规范和价值观的细微差别来规范道德——回到行为的给定性,这排除了基于道德理由的杀戮的区分。不杀人的行为不受道德的约束,也不受杀戮是恶的这一事实的定义,但它是恶的这一事实源于不杀人行为的首要地位,源于不杀人行为中给出的不杀人的决定。道德哲学本身被作者设想为不杀生者的思想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信