Auschwitz and the need for hope

Fresno Bee, July 22, 2016

Human nature is not fixed; we can change
The first step is not becoming blind to injustice
The second is working harder to craft a world we want

I toured Auschwitz in Poland on the same day a man drove a truck through a crowd of people in the south of France. More than 80 people were killed in France. Millions were killed at Auschwitz. This world breaks our hearts.

We might blame religion or ideology for all of this slaughter, but beneath the ideology is a human disease. Cruelty is common. So is indifference. The cure is compassion and responsibility.

A photo taken at the Auschwitz Nazi concentration camp just after its liberation by the Soviet army in January 1945 shows a group of children wearing concentration camp uniforms behind barbed wire fencing.

At Auschwitz, mechanized mass murder became routine. Victims arrived on trains. They were systematically exterminated, desecrated and incinerated. The process was cold, systematic and industrial.

Who could do such things? And why do they continue to happen?

Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, suggested that Auschwitz remains with us. He described the disease of Auschwitz as “the denial of human solidarity, obtuse or cynical indifference to the suffering of others, the abdication of the intellect and the moral sense in the face of authority, and at the root of it all, a tide of cowardice, an abysmal cowardice, masked as warrior virtue.”

Hannah Arendt, a German Jewish philosopher, called our attention to “the banality of evil.” She thought that great evil resulted from mediocre people acting thoughtlessly. She described Adolph Eichmann, who implemented the “Final Solution,” not as a monster but as a clown.

Cruel deeds and evil ideologies are common, as is thoughtless buffoonery. The challenge is to remain appalled in a world awash in murder and mayhem. The worst thing would be to view evil and stupidity as normal, natural and unavoidable. The worst thing would be to return evil for evil with an indifferent shrug that fails to be revolted by the horrors of the world.

That is why we need hope.

Philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This phrase is quoted at the beginning of the tour of Auschwitz.

The quote is taken from a much larger book in which Santayana argues that human nature is not fixed. New species evolve. New ideas emerge. Improved social structures and moral ideals are imaginable. Santayana concluded with a hopeful thought, “evils are transitory and better times may come.”

But for better times to come, we must continue to be outraged by cruelty and thoughtlessness. We must continually acknowledge the depth of human depravity if we are to avoid it. And we must recognize that we can and do evolve.

Memorials to the victims of the Holocaust are found across Germany, including in the heart of Berlin. Last month, the German parliament voted to recognize the Armenian genocideand Germany’s complicity with the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. This acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide is part of an ongoing project that takes responsibility for evil and says, “Never again.”

The German parliament includes a number of ethnically Turkish politicians, who voted in support of the Armenian genocide resolution. Germany’s multicultural parliament is quite different from the racially homogeneous vision of the Third Reich. Evolution occurs.

But things also stay the same. Turkey condemned the Armenian genocide resolution. It called the Turkish-German politicians who voted in favor of the resolution traitors. It recalled its ambassador from Berlin. There were death threats.

AND SO IT WILL GO, UNLESS WE STAND TOGETHER
AGAINST VIOLENCE, INTOLERANCE AND STUPIDITY.

And so it goes. And so it will go, unless we stand together against violence, intolerance and stupidity.

The Auschwitz memorial celebrates one story of moral courage. A Polish priest, Maximilian Kolbe, was sent to Auschwitz. In July of 1941, the commandant sentenced 10 prisoners to a miserable death by starvation. Father Kolbe volunteered to die in place of one of these men. He survived 10 days of starvation and was executed by lethal injection.

Father Kolbe was eventually canonized. A phrase attributed to him provides a warning and an inspiration: “The most deadly poison of our times is indifference.”

In a bleeding world, indifference is a defense mechanism. There is often too much stupid cruelty to bear, so we turn away. It is easy to lose faith in the future. But revulsion in the face of evil is a sign of our humanity. We ought to be apalled.

And then we ought to work to make this a world that doesn’t break our hearts.

July 15, 2016July 27, 2016

Arms Race No Winners

In an arms race, there are no winners

Fresno Bee, July 15, 2016

We ought to imagine alternatives to violence and the arms race
Security and peace require more than military power
Polish examples provide a nonviolent alternative to violence

An ancient lesson teaches that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. That remains true in a world of guns and bombs. An armed world escalates insecurity. But we cannot seem to figure out how to disarm ourselves.

The arms race is like the rat race. There is no winner in such a race. Instead there is anxiety, fear and violence.

OUR FASCINATION WITH MATERIAL SOLUTIONS TO SPIRITUAL PROBLEMS
PREVENTS US FROM IMAGINING WAYS TO BEAT OUR SWORDS INTO PLOWSHARES.

I am in Warsaw, Poland, this week, attending an international conference on global dialogue and peace. Last week, there was a NATO summit here focused on military defense.

The NATO powers issued a communiqué at the summit describing “an arc of insecurity and instability” on the periphery of the alliance. It warns of Russian aggression, instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and increased intensity in global terrorism.

The NATO document recognizes the need to “address the conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism.” But those conditions are psychological, social and ethical.

Human beings need respect, equality, happiness and love. Lack of those spiritual goods is the source of violence, hatred, fear and insecurity. More guns and better weapons can do nothing to change the spiritual malady that leads to violence.

Here in Warsaw last week, President Barack Obama responded to recent outbreaks of violence in the U.S. He warned against fear and violence. He advocated building upon “the better angels of our nature.”

And yet, it seems easier to invest in material solutions to violence than to buttress our better angels. We tend to look at security in technological terms. We want advanced surveillance and mechanized firepower. We want missiles, robots, drones, and more and better guns. But the world needs education, dialogue and mutual understanding.

Material security seems easier. The logic of the arms race is simple. If your sword is bigger than mine, I need a bigger sword. But if I get a bigger sword, you will buy a stronger shield. And so on.

Of course, those who make swords and shields will cheer on the arms race.

Around Warsaw there are massive billboards advertising Raytheon, an American defense company. It seems odd to see an American defense firm advertising in Poland. But Raytheon is working to close a $5 billion deal with Poland for missile defense.

And so it goes.

IF WE SPENT AS MUCH ON NONVIOLENCE AS WE DO ON
ROBOTS, MISSILES AND GUNS, WE MIGHT FEEL MORE SECURE.

Just last week a robot manufactured by Northrup Grumman, another American defense company, killed an assassin in Dallas. This was the first time a robot has been used by police to kill. I suspect it won’t be the last. Nor, unfortunately, will this be the end of the arms race in our streets.

Gun sales have skyrocketed. According to Fortune magazine, American gun sales are up 40 percent from last year. After mass shootings, people buy more guns. Some want these guns to defend themselves. Others worry that the government may curtail gun purchases.

Of course, the gun companies don’t mind the business.

All of this is a bit depressing. Violent solutions to violence escalate violence. This increases anxiety and fuels a further arms race.

A different approach needs to be imagined. A hint is found in Eastern Europe, where nonviolent movements brought about the end of communism. If we spent as much on nonviolence as we do on robots, missiles and guns, we might feel more secure.

In Poland, Pope John Paul II is a local hero and beloved saint. His support of the nonviolent Polish Solidarity movement helped to end the communist regime. John Paul once said, “Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men.”

Violence requires a spiritual solution. Without more basic social and spiritual goods, armed security is a mere stopgap.

Human beings need meaning, hope and love. We thrive when there is respect, dignity and communal feeling. Our fears dissipate when we have stable communities, satisfying work, decent living conditions and trust in the future. We need security. But security must be grounded in liberty, happiness and solidarity.

The fallacy of the arms race is the idea that violence produces peace. In reality, the arms race enriches arms dealers while escalating violence. And in the end, our fascination with material solutions to spiritual problems prevents us from imagining ways to beat our swords into plowshares.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article89837432.html#storylink=cpy

July 8, 2016July 27, 2016

Nostalgia poor guide for politics

There’s no going back in world affairs

Fresno Bee, July 8, 2016

Nationalism should give way to cosmopolitanism
Globalization benefits us all
Nostalgia is poor guide to politics

After Britain voted to leave the European Union,Donald Trump explained, “People want to take their country back. They want to have independence in a sense. You see it with Europe, all over Europe.”

I’ve been traveling in Europe this week, on my way to a conference in Poland. There is resurgent nationalism in some countries. Anti-immigrant sentiment exists. A few right-wing parties are gaining strength.

But European society is deeply cosmopolitan. In the streets of Munich, Bavarians in lederhosen mix with Turks in headscarves. African men in flowing white robes stand on subway platforms with German soccer fans. American brands – McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Starbucks – compete with German beer gardens, sushi restaurants and falafel stands.

The same is true in the U.S. We enjoy German sports cars, Indian cuisine and Mexican labor. And we profit from the global economy. The Apple store in Munich is around the corner from the cathedral and old city hall.

THE GENIE OF GLOBALIZATION IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE.

And yet, politicians appeal to nationalistic nostalgia. In a recent speech supporting Trump, Sarah Palin said, “We’re going to take our country back, and you are either with us or against us.”

But what would we go back to? Contemporary nation-states are modern inventions with a complex and often ugly history. And nationalism creates strife. Each nationalistic line in the sand comes at the expense of someone else.

This is obvious in central Europe. Poland, Lithuania, Hungary and other nations have come and gone, swept along by the tides of history. Some countries have disappeared entirely.

The Kingdom of Bohemia was swallowed up by the Austrian Empire. In the 20th century, Bohemia became Czechoslovakia. Then the Nazis invaded. And the Soviets. After the Cold War, Czechoslovakia broke in two. The Czech Republic was formed in 1993. The country recently adopted a new name, Czechia.

North American history is also full of conflicting identities. Europeans stole the continent from native peoples. The United States was formed out of English, French, Spanish and Russian lands.

THE PAST WAS OFTEN WORSE THAN THE PRESENT.

Alaska was purchased from Russia. It joined the union in 1959 along with Hawaii. What would we say if native Hawaiians wanted to take their country back?

Some people long for the good old days of homogeneous national identity and nationalistic pride. But there never were such good old days. Nostalgia is a poor guide for the present because it is not based in reality. The truth is that political life is constantly changing. Ethnic, racial, linguistic and cultural identities are fleeting realities.

The dangers of nationalistic identity are obvious in central Europe. Concentration camps dot the landscape, along with memorials for those killed in the nationalistic wars of past centuries. Here in Munich, Hitler began the process of transforming Romantic German myths into the monstrous deeds of the Third Reich.

Nostalgia can be fun. My American passport contains inspiring scenes from the American past. There is a picture of a pioneer plowing with oxen and another picture of cowboys herding cattle. But no modern farmer would trade his tractor for a team of oxen. And it’s no longer common that cowboys ride the open range.

The past was often worse than the present. And it was at least as complicated. The reality of the past included dysentery, racism, war and the subordination of women.

THE TASK OF THE FUTURE IS TO DISCOVER AND CELEBRATE OUR COMMON HUMANITY.

There is no going back. We can only move forward. We are in the middle of an unprecedented economic, cultural, technological and ideological transition. We are moving away from isolated nations toward a global society based upon shared notions of human rights.

Not everyone likes that development. But the genie of globalization is out of the bottle. Most of us benefit from it. Open travel, free trade and cultural admixtures make life profitable and interesting.

The Czechs, Poles and Germans seem to have discovered a way to coexist. Despite the atrocities of the nationalistic past, they are participating in the cosmopolitan European experiment.

We ought to embrace the cosmopolitan future, while defending human rights and a global ethic of compassion. That requires an educated understanding of history. Superficial slogans mislead us. Nostalgic myths are dangerous and divisive. The task of the future is to discover and celebrate our common humanity.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article88483562.html#storylink=cpy

July 2, 2016

Partisan Division, The Founders, and Moral Philosophy

Search for common ground this Fourth of July

Fresno Bee, July 2, 2016

Partisan division is explained by philosophy and psychology
Founding Fathers warned against factionalism
Solution to partisanship is friendship and respect for liberty

Our country is seriously divided. A recent Pew Center report indicates that we distrust and fear one another. Among committed partisans, “70 percent of Democrats and 62 percent of Republicans say they are afraid of the other party.”

This crisis of trust threatens the fabric of civil society. But partisan conflict is not new. The Founding Fathers understood its dangers. Ancient philosophers warned against it. And psychologists have explained it in modern terms.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison warned against “the violence of faction.” He called this a “dangerous vice” and a “mortal disease.” Partisan division inflames us with “mutual animosity.” We would rather “vex and oppress each other” than cooperate for the common good. Madison located factionalism deep within human nature, as a product of self-love.

George Washington agreed. He warned against “the baneful effects” of the “spirit of party.” In his Farewell Address, he said, “This spirit is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind.” Washington connected partisanship with the spirit of revenge and the lust for power.

Two thousand years prior, Plato offered a similar diagnoses of partisan politics. We wrongly think that might makes right. We believe our primary duty is to help friends and hurt enemies. And we lose sight of the common good.

One recent book uses brain science to explain partisanship. In “The Righteous Mind,” Jonathan Haidt traces partisan zeal to the brain’s pleasure centers. Partisan behavior unleashes a rewarding blast of dopamine. This reinforces preconceived notions and our sense of righteous superiority. Noting that cocaine and heroin operate on those same pleasure centers, Haidt concludes, “Extreme partisanship may literally be addictive.”

Sigmund Freud directs our attention to the power of love and aggression. We love those who are similar and hate those who are different. Our desire to belong to a group of worthy people leads us to exaggerate the positive aspects of our comrades. This also leads us to inflate the negative features of those in the other party.

Partisan fanaticism often occurs among those who share much in common. Freud calls this the narcissism of minor differences. When our differences are minor, we amplify them in order to gain power and prestige.

With this in mind, we ought to note that the differences between Republicans and Democrats are mostly minor. A few differences get magnified. But no mainstream party is advocating a truly radical alternative to the status quo. No one in either party offers a radical revision of the constitutional system.

Republicans and Democrats each represent a different side of the same American coin. But, of course, the philosophy and psychology of partisanship predicts that partisans on each side will deny that this is true. Each side vilifies the other. The result is distrust and fear.

Our nation’s founders realized that you cannot eliminate factionalism without undermining liberty. They designed the Constitution to moderate its pernicious effects. The Constitution prevents tyranny. The rights of individuals are protected. Power is distributed. The nation’s size and diversity makes it tough for any single faction to gain complete control.

This approach is pragmatic. It does not hope for a radical change in human nature. Instead, it seeks to minimize the negative effects of our factional affliction.

Let’s hope the Constitution is strong enough to weather the current partisan storm. And yet, partisan hatred leaves us unhappy. And it causes moderate people to disengage. That’s unfortunate, since partisan rancor is curbed by the common sense of the moderates.

One solution points beyond politics to friendship. The Pew Center report suggests that those who have a friend in the other party are less fearful of the other party.

But our polarization makes it difficult to be friendly. We do not socialize in mixed political company. Our preconceptions are reinforced by a closed loop of one-sided media choices and self-selected social networks. This allows self-love to grow – and with it, distrust and fear.

Here is a suggestion for the Fourth of July. Befriend someone from the other party. Search for common ground. Our disagreements are nothing to fear. We should accept them as part of human nature. And celebrate them as a sign of our freedom.
Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article87055787.html#storylink=cpy

June 25, 2016June 26, 2016

Assisted Suicide, Living, and Dying Well

Assisted suicide and the ethics of living and dying well

Fresno Bee, June 25, 2016

Assisted suicide law prompts legal challenge
Suicide points toward important religious and philosophical disagreement
The meaning of life includes thinking about dying well

California’s End of Life Option law went into effect June 9. The law permits a physician to prescribe lethal medication to a patient with a terminal illness.

The law defines a terminal illness as “an incurable and irreversible disease that has been medically confirmed and will, within reasonable medical judgment, result in death within six months.”

For some, this is a welcome expansion of the right to die with dignity. For others, it is a sign of a “culture of death.” In any case, the new law invites reflection on the meaning of dying and living well.

As the law went into effect, a lawsuit was filed aiming to block it. The plaintiffs include the American Academy of Medical Ethics, a conservative group that also is opposed to abortion and homosexuality.

The lawsuit contends terminal diagnoses often are not reliable. It states, “The business of prognosticating a patient’s future lifespan is inherently limited, if not altogether flawed.”

The lawsuit also worries that interested parties may coerce people into taking the suicide medication. Health care facilities or legal heirs may have a vested interest in seeing people die.

But the law makes it a felony to force someone to take the lethal medication. And it stipulates only one of the two mandatory witnesses can be an interested party.

The lawsuit views suicide as a mental health problem, connected to depression. From this perspective, suicide is irrational and people requesting it need psychological help, not access to deadly medicines.

This may explain why the California law maintains that the end of life option is not suicide. The law states, “Self-administration of an aid-in-dying drug is not suicide.” It explains, “Action taken in accordance with the act shall not constitute, among other things, suicide or homicide.”

The word “suicide” is laden with moral, emotional and legal significance. It remains illegal in California to abet a “suicide,” though the new law allows a doctor to prescribe “end of life” medication.

The euphemistic language of the legislation is unfortunate. It avoids the main ethical question, which is whether suicide is ever rational and morally permissible.

Some think suicide is always immoral. The Catholic tradition teaches that suicide is as wrong as murder. It rejects God’s sovereignty and refuses the commandment of self-love. Pope Francis recently argued that physician-assisted suicide was part of a “throwaway culture” linked to the “triumph of selfishness.”

Others disagree. A variety of traditions connect suicide to self-respect and rational autonomy. The Japanese code of the samurai – the bushido code – included ritual suicide in the face of dishonor. The ancient Roman Stoics had a similar idea.

The Stoic philosopher Seneca advised against clinging to life. He said, “The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can.” He concluded, “ It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill.”

There is no middle position in this conflict of morals. Some believe death should be freely chosen and that it is better to die well than to live poorly. Others view suicide as inherently sinful. On the one hand, we have rational autonomy and the attempt to die with dignity. On the other, we have an obligation to respect God’s will.

There is space for some agreement. Several of the points discussed above should be a concern even for advocates of assisted suicide. Coercion is a danger. Misdiagnoses are a problem. Suffering people need palliative care. And the dying need spiritual support.

We will continue to disagree about assisted suicide. But each of us only has one life to live and one death to endure. Regardless of the outcome of the legal dispute, everyone ought to think about the morality of suicide.

This issue opens deep questions about life, the universe, and everything. Is life a right or an obligation? Is life always worth living? Are you entitled to make decisions about the time and manner of your own death?

Those are not easy questions. A meaningful life involves struggling with them. A good death comes only after we’ve made peace with the question of what makes life worth living and what counts as living and dying well.

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article85829697.html#storylink=cpy

Andrew Fiala, Ph.D.

Posts

Auschwitz, evil, and hope