Paper 3 The Sunflower Letter For Simon's Conscience Saturday

Paper 3 The Sunflowerletter For Simons Conscienceduesaturday May

Paper #3: The sunflower: Letter for simon’s conscience Due: Saturday, may 25th 11.59PM Length: 5-6 pages (tight, concise writing) Points: 200 In The sunflower (1976), Simon Wiesenthal recounts his experience in concentration camps during the Holocaust and a morally challenging moment he had at the bedside of a dying Nazi who asked him for forgiveness for his crimes against the Jewish community. Simon chooses to remain silent, and this decision haunts him. Book one ends with a powerful question: What would you have done? Remain silent, forgive him, or confront him? As the Harvard professor Michael Sandel says, there is rarely a singular answer to question of morality, but it is critical for people to grapple with these issues.

Although the Holocaust happened over 75 years ago, the event must not be forgotten and the discussion must continue as mass murders and genocide unfortunately still happen today. Looking at the world through the lens of ethics allows us to be more thoughtful world citizens who can be better equipped to stand up for what is right in the face of wrongdoing and make informed decisions. You are tasked with writing a letter in which you grapple with Simon’s question in The Sunflower . You will pick a specific audience to address it to: · a letter to Simon · a letter to Karl · a letter to karl’s mom · a letter to a former Nazi in hiding · a letter to a surviving relative of one of the Jewish people in the burning house · a letter to a survivor of the Rwandan genocide (or other post-wwII genocide) · Have a unique idea?

Run it by me. Requirements: · Employ a dialogic approach that acknowledges and/or evaluates opposing viewpoints and aims to find common ground with the addressee of your letter; you must imagine your audience is resistant to your views or at least reluctant to accept them. Use one of the following approaches: Delayed-Thesis Argument OR Rogerian Argument (see pages 35-45 in the course reader). Follow the outline on p.38 or 41 for help structuring your essay. · Apply methods of evaluating ethical arguments. Include discussion of the possible consequences (Bentham/Mills) and relevant principles (Kant) involved in Simon’s moral dilemma (see pages 47-52 in the course reader). · Include summary, quotes and paraphrases from Book one of The Sunflower. · Work closely with a minimum of three sources from Book Two of The Sunflower. · Edit your paper thoroughly and use proper MLA format, including a works cited page.

Paper For Above instruction

Paper 3 The Sunflowerletter For Simons Conscienceduesaturday May

In exploring the profound moral questions posed by Simon Wiesenthal in his memoir The Sunflower (1976), we are confronted with challenging dilemmas about forgiveness, guilt, and ethical responsibility in the face of atrocity. Wiesenthal recounts a poignant moment during his time in a Nazi concentration camp when a dying SS officer, Karl, asked for his forgiveness for his crimes against the Jewish people. Wiesenthal’s silent refusal haunts him, raising the question: what should one do when confronted with evil? Should forgiveness be granted, forgiveness denied, or should justice be served? These questions go beyond individual morality, touching on core principles of ethics and human decency that resonate even today, as new acts of genocide and mass violence occur globally.

This letter aims to engage a specific audience—survivors of genocide—by examining Wiesenthal’s moral dilemma through a dialogic, Rogerian approach. The goal is to acknowledge the complexities of such moral questions while seeking common ground, even with those who believe that justice or forgiveness alone can resolve moral conflicts. Recognizing the resistance of some survivors to forgive or condone past atrocities, this letter strives to evaluate different ethical principles—including Kantian deontology and utilitarian consequentialism—and how they inform our responses to evil.

Wiesenthal’s account from Book One of The Sunflower vividly illustrates the torment of moral indecision (Wiesenthal, 1976). His silence, driven by a sense of profound moral conflict, illuminates the difficulty of choosing between forgiveness and retribution. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant argue that morality is rooted in duty and adherence to universal principles, such as acting in a manner that could be willed as a universal law (Kant, 1785). For Kant, forgiveness might not be a duty if the offender’s actions are inherently wrong; instead, he emphasizes respecting human dignity and moral law. Conversely, utilitarian thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill focus on the outcomes, advocating actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering (Bentham, 1789; Mill, 1863). In the context of genocide survivors, these principles can suggest different responses—whether to seek justice that foresees reconciliation or to prioritize emotional healing through forgiveness.

In incorporating sources from Book Two of The Sunflower, it becomes evident that Wiesenthal’s interlocutors—ranging from Holocaust survivors to philosophers—offer diverse perspectives on forgiveness and moral responsibility. For example, Elie Wiesel emphasizes that remembrance and bearing witness are vital, suggesting that moral reflection should inform our stance on forgiveness (Wiesel, 1996). Meanwhile, the philosopher Emil Fackenheim warns against granting moral sanction to perpetrators, advocating for a “614th commandment”: to survive and resist future genocide (Fackenheim, 1976). Incorporating these viewpoints reveals the nuanced landscape of moral decision-making, especially when victims and survivors grapple with their trauma and ethical dilemmas.

Despite the complexity, one can argue that a balanced approach—recognizing the importance of justice while fostering understanding—can be ethically sound. The Rogerian method encourages empathetic listening and finding common ground, such as acknowledging the pain of victims and the moral responsibility to prevent future crimes (Rogers, 1961). For survivors of genocide, this might mean embracing the process of mourning and remembrance, while also considering pathways towards reconciliation, healing, and hope for future generations.

Ultimately, Wiesenthal’s question remains poignant: what is the morally right response when faced with evil? The answer is not simple, but engaging with competing ethical frameworks enables us to approach it thoughtfully. Acknowledging both Kantian respect for moral law and utilitarian considerations of consequence allows for a nuanced moral stance—one that respects victims’ suffering while striving to build a more just and compassionate world.

References

• Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press, 1789.
• Fackenheim, Emil L. “Jewish Philosophy after the Holocaust.” Jewish Social Studies, vol. 42, no. 2, 1976, pp. 105–120.
• Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University Press, 1785.
• Mill, John Stuart. A System of Logic. Longmans, Green & Co., 1863.
• Rogers, Carl R. On Becoming a Person. Houghton Mifflin, 1961.
• Wiesel, Elie. Night. Hill and Wang, 1996.
• Wiesenthal, Simon. The Sunflower: On the Possibility of Forgiveness. Schocken Books, 1976.