Understanding of Cruelty, Morals and Sympathy
Cruelty is one of the vices that most societies and Christian believers disapprove. However, philosophers can give an explanation that leaves one in a dilemma of whether cruelty should be a vice. Phillip Hallie, a professor of philosophy, looks into cruelty based on the superficial small-scale side and institutionalized cruelty. He discovers that apart from causing a physical assault to its victims, it also affects their pride, confidence and self-esteem. Giving an example of what took during World War II, the residents of Le Chambon village risked their lives to save 6000 Jews from the Nazis.
According to his perspective, the divergence of cruelty is not just avoiding cruelty itself. Additionally, it is not the practices of fighting cruelty using violence and hate; rather, it is inclined in the explicit and modest goodness of the people of Le Chambon village. People from this village who trailed and stuck to what the bible says; be your brother’s keeper and defend them that do not have fathers. By testing the idea of cruelty, Hallie looks at it from the perspective that it is a tendency to cause pain. However, this is a shallow definition of cruelty, as it is possible to fade away. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
He argues that hospitality is the opposite of cruelty. It is unsentimental and efficacious love that does not have to come as a result of a pity since pity is a temporal emotional feeling that does not stay for long. In his opinion, hospitality must be effective to restore the self-esteem and pride of a victim. Using the village of Le Chambon, he expresses how the villagers expressed hospitality to the Jews since they identified their needs and equated them to their own. They did not help out of pity, but they showed the respect that helped to restore the dignity of the victims.
Hallie also argues that power differential is the most contributing factor to the existence of cruelty. Maintaining power differences continue to enhance cruelty, whereas eliminating power differences will reduce the level of cruelty (Hallie, 8). It occurs in the context of where a more powerful party or individual becomes the victimizer, and the less powerful individual becomes victimized.
In his essay, Jonathan Bennett writes and says that bad morality is s kind of morality whose principles he does not approve (Bennett, 127). He continues to say people from various backgrounds have guiding principles that define morality based on the place they come from. He, therefore, says that when the principles of a person make him see a problem when people are doing good, then that is what he calls bad morality. The story of Mark Twain is significant in the essay as it displays morality at ground level and sympathy. It shows the conflict that exists between morality and sympathy using people who have a conflict in defining and identifying morality and sympathy.
One of the most difficult conclusions in Bennett′s essay is that he perceives Jonathan Edwards to have a worse morality than the known designer of the Nazi Germany and death camps, Heinrich Himmler. According to the essay, Himmler believes that the end justifies the meaning (Bennett, 128). The rules that base his arguments show that he has a lousy morality. In the essay, Bennett believes that although Himmler was sympathetic to his victim’s evil morality prevailed, making him expose the victims to torture and thus showcasing cruelty that Hallie describes. In my opinion, Himmler did not have any sympathy for the victims.
Morals will make an individual develop feelings of sympathy. However, one who dares to order for the killing of so many people does not have a decimal of either moral or compassion. In Hallie’s essay, he asserts that one cannot consider evil persons to be sick; it is just that they something that other non-evil people do not know. Looking at what Himmler does, it is just a wonder that Bennett considers him as a person with good morality as compare to Jonathan Edward. Looking at the life of Jonathan Edwards, he was a theologian and preacher with much influence on his people. The issues and things that this preacher stood to show how moral he was. Admitting the lord’s supper is not a way to transform people to Christ. His firmness in the moral values led him to resign from his position. I therefore cannot entirely agree and say that Bennett’s assessment on morality using Jonathan Edwards and Himmler is not right.
One of the attributes that make an individual have an excellent moral is sympathy. Sympathy refers to having feelings for the challenging situations that an individual is going through. It makes an individual develop the sense of compassion for others for the pain they are experiencing. Sympathy and taking an action of sympathy to assist those in need form part of morals. If Himmler had sympathy for the people who died under his orders, there would be a sense of morality. Although sympathy does not have a direct relationship with morality, in someway it has an influence to humanity and moral values.
Works cited
Hallie Phillip From Cruelty to Goodness© Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, 360 Broadway, I-Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706.
Bennett, Jonathan. “The conscience of huckleberry Finn.” Philosophy 49.188 (1974): 123-134.