One of the most heinous crimes against humanity, the Holocaust, has served as an impetus behind many artistic endeavors. Surviving Auschwitz: Children Of The Shoah by WSGVU is one of them: a 2005 documentary that follows two Holocaust survivors as they visit their hometown and concentration camps. Surviving Auschwitz deepens the viewer’s understanding of genocide by adding a personal dimension to the storytelling. The two survivors share their terrifying childhood memories with their children and grandchildren (WSGVU, 2005). The movie seeks to capture the depths of depravity that humans can reach when swayed by ideology. Surviving Auschwitz is a reminder of a humanitarian catastrophe whose impact lingers to this day.
The documentary gives rise to a logical question as to what could be done to prevent the Holocaust from happening. To answer this question, one should look at two opposing philosophical approaches: cultural relativism and moral objectivism. Cultural relativism states that cultural variance in moral code is acceptable while moral objectivism believes in absolute moral judgments. When it comes to human rights crises, I am in favor of moral objectivism for three reasons that I will explain below.
Firstly, cultural relativism fails to provide practical advice on handling the world’s problems. Its very nature prevents it from giving a proper response. Cultural relativism denies that objective moral judgment exists, therefore, this philosophical approach is not able to draw a universal line between good and evil. Instead, cultural relativists encourage acceptance of harmful practices if they are entrenched in a foreign culture. About the Holocaust, cultural relativism could go as far as justifying Nazi Germany in its right to actively eradicate Jews as part of its cultural code. In other words, relative morality grounded in cultural variance leads to passive contemplation without the ability to intervene.
Secondly, moral objectivism is predicated on the assumptions that foreign cultures can and should be comprehended enough to receive criticism. Cultural relativism, on the other hand, sees cultures as unique and insulated: it insists that outsiders do not have the expertise or personal experience to understand them. However, documentaries such as Surviving Auschwitz is so deeply moving because they address universal problems of human justice and the sanctity of life. One does not need extensive knowledge about German culture pre-and during the Holocaust to know how morally reprehensible it was.
Moreover, since foreign cultures are seen as independent entities, then morality can be watered down to custom and tradition. In other words, as long as many people approve of an idea, it has the right to exist and be put to practice. In Surviving Auschwitz, the two narrators describe the stepwise, gradual descent into fascism and antisemitism. Their stories expose the power of herd mentality that ultimately fuels cultural relativism and accounts for its survivability.
Lastly, cultural relativism limits moral progress that is needed to prevent human rights crises. As the world advances socially, economically, and politically, it needs a common goal, the North Star, to guide on its way to improvement. Moral objectivism offers a clear and understandable roadmap that provides judgment about any idea or action. In contrast, cultural relativism advocates for chaos and morbid individualism that can bring about more humanitarian disasters if left unattended.
Reference
WSGVU. 2005. “Surviving Auschwitz: Children Of The Shoah.” Online video. Web.