‘It is from society and not from the individual that morality derives’ (Durkheim 1974: 61). According to Emile Durkheim ‘morality begins with the membership and life of a group…and that society creates all moral codes, not individuals’ (Durkheim 1974: 37). He stated that an individual cannot exist without society or deny it, without denying himself. Zygmunt Bauman however disagrees and believes morality is a pre-social impulse and therefore does not originate in society. In this essay I will first explore Durkheim’s theory of morality. I will then interrogate Durkheim’s claim that moral values come from society and are solely directed towards society by examining Bauman’s critique of his theory exemplified in ‘Modernity and the Holocaust’(Bauman 1989). Furthermore I will explore Bauman’s use of Weber as a form of advancement towards his critique of Durkhemian theory of morality and the ‘civilising process’. Lastly I will also explore Bauman’s change in ideas after writing ‘Modernity and the Holocaust’ by examining his new way of thinking exemplified in one of his most famous works ‘Liquid Modernity’. This essay will set out to challenge and evaluate critiques and conflicting theories from both Durkheim and Bauman as social theorists, and critically examine opposing ideologies.
Durkheim’s conception of morality is summarised in the chapter ‘The Determination of Moral Facts’ in his work ‘Sociology and Philosophy (Durkheim 1974) in which he argued that morality is a social force and that it is a product of the collective conscience. Morals are born from society through social interaction. Durkheim argued that social integration is dependent on its recognition by society. He states that ‘in order to observe the nature of moral facts...
... middle of paper ...
...Bauman advances this critique of Durkheimian theory of morality by making use of Max Weber’s theory of bureaucratization and the civilized society. Bauman argues that Weber’s work helps reveal the ways in which bureaucracy has the ability to end rational action and moral thought by systematically rendering morality immune to processes overseen by irrational norms. Here he uses the Holocaust again to portray how a ‘civilized society’ can use bureaucratization to systematically administrate and orchestrate the genocide committed by the Nazi regime. After Bauman’s ‘Modernity and the Holocaust’ he refers to a new type of modernity dubbed ‘liquid modernity’ to describe a more liquid form of societal life. Bauman now believes that the liquid or fluid society is not based upon a solid structure but rather a liquid society that does not have a structure and is unsystematic.
Three thinkers form the foundations of modern-day sociological thinking. Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber. Each developed different theoretical approaches to help us understand the way societies function, and how we are determined by society. This essay will focus on the contrasts and similarities of Durkheim and Weber’s thought of how we are determined by society. It will then go on to argue that Weber provides us with the best account of modern life.
In Sigmund Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents and Primo Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz, both authors explore the source of human violence and aggression. Sigmund Freud’s book reacts to the state of Europe after World War I, while Primo Levi’s narrative is a first-hand account of his experiences during World War II. International and domestic tensions are high when both works are written; Sigmund Freud adopts a pessimistic tone throughout the work, while Primo Levi evolves from a despairing approach to a more optimistic view during his time at Auschwitz. To Sigmund Freud, savagery comes from the natural state of human beings, while Primo Levi infers violence is rooted in individual’s humanity being stripped away is.
Goldhagen's book however, has the merit of opening up a new perspective on ways of viewing the Holocaust, and it is the first to raise crucial questions about the extent to which eliminationist anti-Semitism was present among the German population as a whole. Using extensive testimonies from the perpetrators themselves, it offers a chilling insight into the mental and cognitive structures of hundreds of Germans directly involved in the killing operations. Anti-Semitism plays a primary factor in the argument from Goldhagen, as it is within his belief that anti-Semitism "more or less governed the ideational life of civil society" in pre-Nazi Germany . Goldhagen stated that a
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
Rubinstein, William D. The Myth of Bombing Auschwitz. The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis. London: Routledge, 1997. 157-81. Print.
Perhaps no other event in modern history has left us so perplexed and dumbfounded than the atrocities committed by Nazi Germany, an entire population was simply robbed of their existence. In “Our Secret,” Susan Griffin tries to explain what could possibly lead an individual to execute such inhumane acts to a large group of people. She delves into Heinrich Himmler’s life and investigates all the events leading up to him joining the Nazi party. In“Panopticism,” Michel Foucault argues that modern society has been shaped by disciplinary mechanisms deriving from the plague as well as Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon, a structure with a tower in the middle meant for surveillance. Susan Griffin tries to explain what happened in Germany through Himmler’s childhood while Foucault better explains these events by describing how society as a whole operates.
...rocedure for the Nazi regime’s extermination camps and “Final Solution.” In order for the assailants to perform their duties they had to reduce their victims to nothing, so in the end they would be “less burdened by guilt.” (DS, 126) Levi provides readers with the Nazi’s process of destruction and explains how their totalitarian system was accountable for the propagation of this level of brutality. It is mentioned that “all of them, teachers and pupils, became progressively removed from reality as little by little their morality came unglued.” (DS, 107) Here we see why it was so important to perform such useless acts of violence, because we are not conditioned to such mass killings. Both Levi’s writings, Survival in Auschwitz and The Drowned and the Saved provide an insight into life in the Lager, and the dehumanization that ultimately destroyed millions of people.
The aim of this essay is to differentiate between law and morality, and to discuss whether there is an overlap between the two concepts. I will be making reference to theorists of both positive law and natural law, namely H. L. A Hart and Lon L. Fuller respectively and compare the two views on the above question. For the purpose of understanding, I will apply the two theories to the legal system in Nazi Germany.
Durkheim was concerned with studying and observing the ways in which society functioned. His work began with the idea of the collective conscious, which are the general emotions and opinions that are shared by a society and which shape likeminded ideas as to how the society will operate (Desfor Edles and Appelrouth 2010:100-01). Durkheim thus suggested that the collective ideas shared by a community are what keeps injustices from continuing or what allows them to remain.
Would you describe a dog as capable of being evil? Or a cat? Or a chimpanzee? Most likely you could not. We humans belong to the taxonomic kingdom of Animalia and are therefore animals. Our species has evolved from animals that looked and acted more like the modern chimpanzee than we do. So at what point did we go from being creatures of instinct do developing the concept of morality? A great deal of literature has been written about morality, examples of which can be located in fiction and non-fiction as well as in scientific, theological and philosophical fields. Specific examples include the bible, as well as the writings of Plato (c. 424-348 BCE), Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) and John Steinbeck (1902-1968). Morality is a trait that is developed as a result of practical material situations and experience as exemplified in The Grapes of Wrath, challenged by St. Matthew, but reinforced in the writings of Plato; we humans are born morally neutral.
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
For years many philosophers have tries to create a perfect working system of what they think morality is. In all the claims of what morality is none could agree. So each wrote their own ideas on what morality entail thus presenting the augments to the public in the judging of why and which theory was the best. However, Scheffler in his, Morality’s demand and their Limits, evaluate all the concepts that the ideal moral theory must have. This essay will discuss the ideas that Scheffler presents in relation to John Stuart Mill moral theory of Utilitarianism. Scheffler gave three aspiration explaining what an ethical theory concept of morality must have. He stated them as: Pervasiveness, Stringency/ demanding and overriding. Pervasiveness speaks
The holocaust attested that morality is adaptable in severe conditions. Traditional morality stopped to be contained by the barbed wires of the concentration camps. Inside the camps, prisoners were not dealt like humans and thus adapted animal-like behavior needed to survive. The “ordinary moral world” (86) Primo Levi refers in his autobiographical novel Se questo è un uomo (If This Is a Man or Survival in Auschwitz), stops to exist; the meanings and applications of words such as “good,” “evil,” “just,” and “unjust” begin to merge and the differences between these opposites turn vague. Continued existence in Auschwitz demanded abolition of one’s self-respect and human dignity. Vulnerability to unending dehumanization certainly directs one to be dehumanized, thrusting one to resort on mental, physical, and social adaptation to be able to preserve one’s life and personality. It is in this adaptation that the line distinguishing right and wrong starts to deform.
...lay in societal change. However it was only until the works of Durkheim and Simmel that the role of individual interaction and society is brought to the forefront. Durkheim largely viewed the individual as needing society as a mechanism of constraint to the aspirations of an eternal goal. Finally, Simmel was able to expand on Durkheim’s dualism by noting that society could be viewed as more than a mechanism of constraint rather as an accumulation of individual interaction. Either through a combination or as individuals each theorist distinct view of the relationship between the individual and society demonstrates a new understanding towards the nature of social reality.
Emile Durkheim argued that we live in a pluralistic society meaning that we have a diverse set of moral values and that we do not agree on many. Take, for example, murder which everyone automatically believes to be wrong and yet it may actually be justified in some situations for example self-defence, in war and euthanasia. This is what may be debated morally whereas in law murder is not looked lightly upon. The case of Diane Pretty illustrates this where ...