In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.
Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is:
Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:
Criminal Guilt:
Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.
Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.
Political Guilt:
Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.
Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.
Moral Guilt:
Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.
Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.
Metaphysical Guilt:
Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.
Instance: God or transcendence.
Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.
Yes. I wonder what the outcomes of centering the soldiers gult is?
Do we want the solution to be that soldiers have to consider every order given within the historical context of the time to decide the morally correct actions and do them even if it means court martial or death?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay for soldiers to do this in extreme examples. But I don’t think this should be the norm.
I think we should shift the focus to the leaders instead of the soldiers. They are better positioned to make these decisions and have the time to do so.
Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.
From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.
They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.
Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.
Thanks, for your summary. I think he’s right about different kinds of guilt being judged in different ways. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean that person will never feel the guilt. It sounds like a good read.
The idea is to consistently work toward being better than yesterday and making restitution, where possible, not where comfortable. It’s not always going to be easy. It’s called character development. If we’ve worked hard for a number of years being of bad character, it’s generally going to take an equal or greater number of years of hard work and restitution to be of great character; but with diligence, I would say perhaps the number of exceptions would be greater than the general rule. It doesn’t mean there will actually be external validation of it, though.
Lol. I feel that to the core. We all do and all are. And I certainly did try to escape too. I think the main thing is doing our best to minimize any harm and maximize any service to our fellow living beings, understanding that everything is a living being.
Thank you. 18 year old kids who were never given a sufficient education in history, civics, political science, and basic morality can’t be blamed for working as a cook, secretary, nurse, electrician, intel analyst, etc in the military so that they can afford college.
Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.
It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.
In the aftermath of World War II, Carl Jaspers formulated in Die Schuldfrage that there are four types of guilt (/responsibility). Criminal guilt, political guilt, moral guilt, and metaphysical guilt. It is a great distinction in general. Yes, political leaders bear a different kind of guilt for the actions than the soldiers, but acting on clearly morally wrong commands do not obliterate guilt from the soldiers. Just like everyone who basically didn’t give their life in pursuit of the good and the right bears some metaphysical guilt for what is happening in the world.
Edit: I realized that, since I am neither an English native, nor very articulate in philosophy or politics, I would rather ask perplexity for a summary. So here it is: Karl Jaspers, in his work The Question of German Guilt, distinguishes four categories of guilt and assigns specific instances to each:
Criminal Guilt:
Definition: Violations of objectively provable laws that are legally considered crimes.
Instance: The court, which determines the facts and applies the laws in formal proceedings.
Political Guilt:
Definition: Arises from the actions of statesmen and the shared responsibility of every citizen for the government of their state.
Instance: The power and will of the victor, especially after a lost war, as in the case of Germany after World War II.
Moral Guilt:
Definition: Refers to individual actions for which every person is morally responsible, even if carried out under orders.
Instance: One’s own conscience and dialogue with others.
Metaphysical Guilt:
Definition: A shared responsibility for all injustice in the world, based on human solidarity. It arises when one does not do everything possible to prevent injustice.
Instance: God or transcendence.
Jaspers emphasizes that this differentiation is meant to avoid simplistic or generalized accusations of guilt. He rejects the idea of collective criminal or moral guilt for an entire people, arguing that guilt is always individual.
Yes. I wonder what the outcomes of centering the soldiers gult is?
Do we want the solution to be that soldiers have to consider every order given within the historical context of the time to decide the morally correct actions and do them even if it means court martial or death?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m okay for soldiers to do this in extreme examples. But I don’t think this should be the norm.
I think we should shift the focus to the leaders instead of the soldiers. They are better positioned to make these decisions and have the time to do so.
And it’s their job.
Very honestly - I’ve still not read the book entirely and I have started because I felt some feeling of guilt myself for being a Russian living outside Russia. I think that’s actually exactly what Jaspers, along with his students (the book is basically a dialectic lecture written down with results of work of his class from one semester), was trying to figure out. So I am not the best person to lecture you about that.
From as far as I have read these distinctions are exactly what allow people to talk about guilt, responsibility, trauma, the past, etc, without judging everyone by the same standards. Like, a criminal is judged by the court who defines for a crime they committed. A politician who took part in ordering crimes will be judged by the victor of a war. A soldier (just like a secretary) will be judged in dialogue with others and by his conscience for their individual actions, even if they were following orders. And a normal person who looked away or didn’t actively do their best to stop the atrocities that happen in the world, well, this person’s metaphysical guilt can basically only be judged by a metaphysical instance itself, be it God or another undefined transcendence. Basically all of us bear the latter.
They are very distinct and do not have the same repercussions. It is without doubt that political leaders have a much different, much more facetted responsibility for crimes committed. And we should focus on that. But this does not clean the people who followed their orders from all guilt, and their responsibility and crimes (against humanity) will be judged, just in a different way.
Edit: I’ve added a better phrased summary in my original comment above, since I have realized that translating German political philosophy isn’t my strength exactly.
Thanks, for your summary. I think he’s right about different kinds of guilt being judged in different ways. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it, that doesn’t mean that person will never feel the guilt. It sounds like a good read.
It’s basically impossible not to be a PoS. Wish I was just not born now.
The idea is to consistently work toward being better than yesterday and making restitution, where possible, not where comfortable. It’s not always going to be easy. It’s called character development. If we’ve worked hard for a number of years being of bad character, it’s generally going to take an equal or greater number of years of hard work and restitution to be of great character; but with diligence, I would say perhaps the number of exceptions would be greater than the general rule. It doesn’t mean there will actually be external validation of it, though.
That’s the thing. I will always owe something, and I’m always guilty of something just because I am alive.
I actually was so bothered by this, that I spent years trying to develop a system to get around it.
Lol. I feel that to the core. We all do and all are. And I certainly did try to escape too. I think the main thing is doing our best to minimize any harm and maximize any service to our fellow living beings, understanding that everything is a living being.
Thank you. 18 year old kids who were never given a sufficient education in history, civics, political science, and basic morality can’t be blamed for working as a cook, secretary, nurse, electrician, intel analyst, etc in the military so that they can afford college.
Again - there is and must be a distinction between the blame, responsibility and guilt of an 18 year old uneducated soldier, nurse etc and a political leader. But this does not automatically absolve the former from all responsibility and guilt. You should and hopefully do focus on the latter’s guilt and responsibility, as it is much larger than the others’. Focussing on the people who follow orders is not what I would advertise for and this isn’t the intent, it is actually the exact opposite. By differentiating different aspects and kinds of guilt you have tools and language at hand to talk about it without putting everyone in the same boat.
It is not a black and white issue. Everyone got blood on their hands - you and me included - just in different amounts, in different ways.
Never heard of this, thanks