The topic is Heinrich Himmler's Speech at Poznan (Posen)

Question

-Give a summary of the speech
-How does this relate to ethics and moral
-How does this relate to philosophy and philosophers (like Hobbes and others)

Write in complete sentences using Standard English grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Response Papers need to be 700 words.

Your Response Papers must consist of two paragraphs.

-In your first paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have carefully read the text assigned for that day, by explaining, in your own words, what is going on in a particular section of it. You can choose to write about one paragraph, or one page, from the text assigned for that day. You must include a brief quotation (or two) from the passage you are writing about, and you must indicate the quotation’s page number. Put the source [either Moral Life or Folio] and the page number, in brackets right after the quotation. i.e., ... “Some things are up to us, some are not up to us” (Moral Life, p.388). I assume you are using the assigned seventh edition of the textbook. If you are using a previous edition of the textbook, indicate which version in your citation. Do not spend any time on biographical information about the philosopher.

-In the second paragraph, the task is to demonstrate that you have thought critically about this portion of the text by offering some sort of critical response to it (i.e. what you think about the ideas in this portion of the text, and why you think that). The second paragraph must be at least as long as or longer than the first paragraph

Answer 1

Heinrich Himmler's speech at Poznań in 1943 is a chilling and disturbing revelation of the mindset driving the Nazi regime's genocidal policies. In this speech, Himmler explicitly addresses the systematic extermination of the Jewish population, rationalizing these acts as necessary for Germany's future. He states bluntly, “We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people that is ruining our people” (Folio, p. 155). This frank confession reveals not just a calculated approach to mass murder but also a chilling justification rooted in a distorted sense of duty and morality. Himmler frames the Holocaust as an obligation rather than a crime, emphasizing that the Nazi party is engaged in a struggle for the survival of the Aryan race. His chilling rhetoric indicates a depersonalization of the victims and an alarming acceptance of moral relativism, suggesting that the ends justify the means in achieving broader ideological goals. The manner in which this systematic dehumanization of individuals is carried out underscores the warped moral landscape of the time, wherein the obliteration of an entire population is framed in terms of a supposed ethical imperative for the safety and purity of the German people.

Reflecting critically on Himmler's chilling justifications signals a larger discourse around ethics and morality, particularly in extreme circumstances. The speech epitomizes a fundamentally flawed ethical standpoint, as Himmler equates genocidal actions with righteousness while completely disregarding the inherent value of human life. This raises compelling questions about moral philosophy and the definitions of right and wrong within societal frameworks. When comparing Himmler’s rationale with the ideas of philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, one finds contrasting perspectives on the social contract and the state of nature. Hobbes believed that in the absence of a strong central authority, life would descend into chaos, famously stating that life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Folio, p. 72). Himmler’s worldview, on the other hand, exemplifies an extreme individualism and tribalism, prioritizing the presumed benefits to one group over the universal human rights of others. This divergence questions the responsibility that individuals and governments hold towards those outside their group and emphasizes the need for ethical accountability in actions taken by states. Ultimately, Himmler's speech serves to remind us of the dire consequences that can arise when moral absolutes become expediently manipulated, making it crucial for contemporary ethical discussions to confront our own societal tendencies toward dehumanization and exclusion.