The task: Evaluate Ella Lingen's statement that “evil was good and good was evil”! What could she mean by that? Also look at the statement from an ethical and moral perspective.
I don't understand the statement. Why was evil good?
I would say: Ella Lingens also lost her moral compass in Auschwitz.
How can you say that it is "good" to fight epidemics by murdering thousands of people?
And this in an age where these epidemics were absolutely not necessary because there were already enough other means to combat them.
The Germans back then artificially created epidemics by squeezing people into too little space under poor hygiene conditions, and feeding them too little, and then they came up with the glorious oneIdea to fight the epidemic by murdering people?
What's that supposed to mean?
I wouldn't get involved at all in the argument that there was something good about all of this.
The most you could say is that many people were harmed in order to benefit a few. i.e. there were beneficiaries of evil, even among the prisoners, partly. unintentionally and without knowledge.
But what is meant by the statement? Why is evil good and good evil? And what is evil and good?
So I assume she ultimately thinks it's a good thing that thousands of people were murdered to fight typhus.
But I don't agree with this statement at all.
Why? I don't think we can even imagine the conditions under which they lived.
The text pleaseread again more carefully, you misunderstood.
Ella Lingens writes:
In fact, typhus was only defeated when the cruelest person I have ever seen appeared.
He actually inextricably intertwined good and evil, I would say. The image that immediately comes to mind is the Möbius loop.
Mengele (evil) did good (he defeated typhus by disinfecting everything) and at the same time did evil by having the Jewish patients killed block by block in order to do good again, namely thoroughly disinfect the rooms and thus to eradicate typhus.
There is no longer a separation between good and evil. Mengele combines this in himself and his actions. He does good with evil and good comes from evil.
I think this is intended to make it clear that morals were simply twisted during the Nazi era. Theres what is actually seen as inhumane and evil was normalized and considered sensible back then. What was actually seen as a humane solution to a problem was presented as uneconomical, superfluous or even harmful to the people.
So specifically: The concentration camp inmates didn't have to be killed because of the lice infestation and the associated typhus, but from the Nazi perspective, killing was simply a clean and quick, i.e. economical solution. From today's perspective, that was just cruel, inhumane and unnecessary! The lice problem could have been solved differently, namely by building new barracks and paying better attention to hygiene, which of course would have been more complex and would have taken longer.
So what evil means is that people were killed? But then why is good evil?
It's all in my answerBut why?is good then evil?
it would have been good to build additional barracks and pay better attention to hygiene, but that would have taken longer and cost more (i.e. it would have been uneconomical and therefore bad = evil)
Josef Mengele let 1,500 people die so that typhus could be eliminated.
Ella Lingens describes this as a good deed. From their perspective, killing people was evil. The “good” result was that the typhus was gone.
I couldn't describe mass murder as good.
It is not clear from the text above that Ella Lingens describes the mass murder of 1,500 people as a good deed, but rather that she found it terrible because the Nazis could have built a barrack instead of the mass murder.
But what about the Aussage meant? Why is evil good and good evil? And what is evil and good?
It's about the distortion of good and evil. Evil disguises itself as good by presenting evil actions as having no alternative and proceeding according to the motto "The end justifies the means".
During Corona, politicians applied the same principle. Except they didn't go so far as to murder people. They were “just” stigmatized, excluded and insulted. But at its core it was the same basic idea. If the virus were actually dangerous, the government would probably have built camps again like they did during the Nazi era. In Australia they had already built something similar for travelers with Covid.
I think you lost your compass too.
Exactly, the comparison of Corona today with typhus in Auschwitz ist totally wrong.