The Nazis are hard to pin down. One can make the case that their motives are driven by a political agenda, domination of the entire globe, but on the other hand, after taking control of another country, it seems that the systematic eradication of specific groups of people is no longer a political motive but a fear tactic. Many characters throughout the show fear the occupying government because they believe that if they speak out or step out of line, they will be killed. An interesting point Habermas makes is that global terrorism exclusively targets civilian populations in order to instill fear. We see this with the events of 9/11, as well as the recent attacks by ISIS on westerners. Although these terror organizations have political motives in the Middle East, their motives towards the West is to cause destruction and instill fear whether it is through explosions or beheadings.
In the two distinctions that Habermas lays out, one type can be seen as constituting acts of war while the other is purely terrorism. Political terrorism can be viewed as acts of war since it has an end goal that justifies the actions. In other words, terrorism that has political motives can also be viewed as acts of war. Global terrorism is purely motivated by fear-based coercion, as highlighted by the events of 9/11. In the words of Habermas, “I cannot imagine a context that would . . . make the monstrous crime of September 11th an understandable . . . political act.”
Keep Calm and Fight On
Using Waldron’s criteria, we established that the Resistance met two of the four conditions: getting victims under their control, and affecting their judgment. If we consider these two conditions enough to define a group as a terror group, then we can move on to what type of group the Resistance resembles, political or global terrorism.
As we’ve seen, the Resistance has political motives that are geared towards a certain end, which makes them political terrorists. So, the Nazi claim that the Resistance is a terrorist group appears to be valid, but as we have also pointed out, political terrorism can also be an act of war, or can occur during war.
The Nazis, though, satisfy all four conditions of Waldron’s criteria, so this is clearly enough to call them terrorists. The Nazis appear to exercise both types of terrorism, political and global. If we speak in terms of Nazi soldiers systematically killing conquered civilians and using death camps as fear tactics, then it would be fair to call them political terrorists. However, if we speak about the Nazis who are fighting to expand the Third Reich’s boundaries, then it is equally fair to call them global terrorists.
With these two distinctions, it would be fair to assume that the Resistance are terrorists, but of a distinctively political nature. They are people who have lost their homes and are fighting back, to secure what was lost. Just like the colonists in revolutionary America, when you fight the established system you’re marked as terrorists. It’s not until you prevail and establish your new regime that you’re generally viewed as fighters for justice.
12
Are We Really Sure They’re Wrong?
TIMOTHY HSIAO
If you’re reading this, then you probably think that there’s something deeply wrong and unjust about the way the Japanese and German governments are operating within the universe of The Man in the High Castle. But why? What do we mean when we say that something is “wrong” or “unjust”?
There are two basic ways of approaching this question. According to what we may call moral relativism, the truth of moral statements is dependent on either the individual or the individual’s culture. So if something is right or wrong, then it is right or wrong for me or my culture, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the same for you or your culture. There is no “higher” morality to which everyone is subject. Morally speaking, one view is as good as another.
On the other hand, moral objectivism asserts that the truth of moral statements are independent of what individuals or cultures believe. If something is objectively wrong, then it is wrong because it violates some higher moral law, and not because it is something on which an individual or culture has a negative opinion. Where does this moral law come from, you might ask? Answers vary, but popular ones include God, reason, and human nature. The one feature that all of these answers have in common is that morality is not something that we get to decide or make up.
Which view is more plausible? I submit that upon reflection, nearly everyone is in some way implicitly committed to the truth of moral objectivism. Although many people like to pay lip service to moral relativism, it is deeply inadequate in explaining what we know to be true about morality. Consider just one example: When Joe Blake is travelling from New York City to make initial contact with the Resistance, he interacts with a highway patrolman in the Midwest who assists him in changing a flat tire. During the course of his conversation, he asks the patrolman about ash that he notices is falling from the sky. The patrolman casually responds, “Oh, it’s the hospital. On Tuesdays they burn cripples . . . the terminally ill. Drag on the state.”
We’re rightly horrified at this revelation. There’s no doubt that such a practice should be condemned and resisted. But why? It can’t be that it violates a societal or cultural norm, for the very values of a Nazi society are such that those with disabilities should be put to death because they are “life unworthy of life.” Accordingly, if cultural relativism is true, then it’s morally permissible—and perhaps even obligatory—for those in a Nazi society to put the disabled to death because they are disabled. The real bad guys turn out to be the Resistance fighters, because they’re the ones working actively to undermine Nazi values!
But we rightly dismiss this as absurd. Nazi values are objectively corrupt, even to those who accept them. If it is ever possible for a society to make moral mistakes, then society cannot be the barometer of moral truth.
The appeal to personal opinions or tastes fares no better: if individuals can ever err in making moral judgments, then individual attitudes cannot be the source of moral truth. Not all opinions are created equal. Someone who believes that it is morally permissible to put the disabled to death because they are disabled is just as wrong as the person who believes that 1 + 1 = 3. Without a standard of morality that is independent of our say-so, we cannot condemn anything as being truly evil. At best, all that we could say is that we personally disapprove of their actions, and nothing more.
When it comes down to it, we all seem to recognize that there exists an objective moral law that is independent of our personal beliefs or preferences. This “natural law” is what provides us with a basis for saying that individuals and even whole cultures can err in their moral thinking. Many philosophers, echoing St. Paul’s remark that this law is “written on the hearts” of man, think that there are a set of fundamental moral truths that are known to anyone with properly functioning rational faculties. Consider Obergruppenführer Smith’s reaction to the news that his son has an incurable congenital defect that requires mandatory euthanasia. He finds it unacceptable that his own son should be put to death simply because of his condition. And yet, he must surely recognize that this runs counter to the Nazi values of his culture. This, we might think, is his knowledge of the natural law tugging away at his conscience.
Granted, there is reasonable disagreement on the finer points of morality, but the mere fact of disagreement doesn’t prove relativity. Disagreement can be found all the time in the sciences, but nobody thinks that disagreement there shows that there is no fact of the matter about biology, chemistry, or physics. The fact that there is disagreement only shows that the deeper you get into a subject matter, the more difficult the questions become. But it would be a mistake to focus on the hard cases while ignoring the clear ones.
So what’s the point of all of this? The point is that there is an objective moral law that governs human behavior, and that this objective moral law is being violated by the Japanese and German governments in The Man in the High Castle. If we want to say that these governments are acting wrongly in any meaningful sense, then we must presuppose the existence of a moral
standard that is independent of human opinion. As C.S. Lewis put it, you can’t call a line crooked unless you have an idea of what a straight line should be.
Resisting a Tyrannical Government
Unless there is a standard of morality that is higher than any nation or group of nations, there can be no basis for saying that what the Nazis did was wrong. It is for this reason that, in the actual world, American Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson argued in the Nuremberg Trials that the Nazis could be held morally accountable for their actions because they violated the “natural and inalienable rights in every human being.” Even though the Nazis were just following the laws and norms of their own society, their actions were nevertheless in violation of a higher law to which all societies are subject.
Thus, St. Augustine famously stated that “an unjust law is no law at all.” Augustine argued that law should reflect morality, and therefore any civil law that contradicts the natural moral law is null and void. This distinction between just and unjust laws is what provides us with a basis for justified civil disobedience.
But there is a difference between mere disobedience and active rebellion. It is one thing to refuse to obey an unjust law, and another to take up arms against a government that has passed an unjust law. Governments are in general a source of social stability that should not be abolished without a good reason, so the mere fact that a government might make a mistake does not by itself justify its overthrow.
An armed rebellion is a type of war, and so the rules of war must apply to those who wish to take up arms against the government. On this point, many philosophers, again following Augustine, have argued that a just war can only be initiated if the following five conditions are met:
1.Proper authority
2.Just cause
3.Reasonable chance of success
4.Proportionality
5.Last resort
Does the American Resistance movement’s fight against the Axis governments satisfy these conditions? Let’s consider them one by one.
Proper Authority
The proper authority requirement is tricky, at least when considering the American Resistance movement. Normally, wars are conducted by nation states. Why? Because nation states are responsible for maintaining social order within their respective domains, they carry with them the mantle of authority. This social authority is what allows a nation state to organize a military to fight on behalf of the common good.
Since the purpose of a just war is to restore the balance of justice to a given society, only those with the responsibility of maintaining social order can initiate such a just war. Here we run into a problem: the Resistance movement is clearly not a nation state, but an entity within a nation state. So how can the Resistance movement wage a just war against the Axis governments if it lacks the authority of a state?
Before we proceed any further, it’s crucial to distinguish between de facto authority and proper authority. To have de facto authority is to be in a position where you have the actual power to impose your will on society, whether or not your will is morally licit. The Nazi and Japanese governments certainly exercise this kind of authority (and they do so ruthlessly), whereas the resistance movement obviously lacks it.
Proper authority, by contrast, consists of the power to enforce the natural moral law. To have authority of this kind is to be in such a position where you are able to carry out what the moral law requires. The Axis governments obviously lack this kind of authority even though they possess a great deal of de facto authority.
While the Resistance movement lacks de facto authority, it nevertheless possesses proper authority in the sense that it acts in a co-ordinated way so as to restore the natural moral law. That is to say, in working together to overthrow an unjust government, the Resistance is acting as a representative of a social order rooted in the natural moral law. True, it may not wield the all-encompassing de facto authority that the Nazi and Japanese governments have, but the Resistance does function as a single entity with a certain kind of authority (even if weak and minuscule) that unites its members for the sake of a common goal.
Just Cause
The goal of a just war should be to re-establish a just peace. While we’re never really presented with an explicit declaration of what the Resistance seeks to accomplish, it’s not unreasonable to assume that their ultimate goal is the re-establishment of a legitimate and peaceful social order. The newsreel-style footage of the films may offer some insight, as they depict the Allied powers victoriously fighting for a just cause. At the very least, we can be sure that this is why Juliana is participating in the Resistance, given that the films had a transformative effect on her. Trade Minister Tagomi’s mystical experience of what a peaceful San Francisco could have looked like might offer another glimpse into the social order Juliana and the others hope to bring about.
Reasonable Chance of Success
Why must there be a reasonable chance of success before we can initiate a just war? Well, the rationale is easy to see: it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering. Accordingly, the amount of suffering that you’re prepared to accept should at least be proportionate to the benefits that are being sought. Even if you’re fighting for a noble cause, engaging in a futile conflict will only result in unnecessary casualties and damage to the social order. This is not to say that it’s sometimes obligatory for us to submit to an unjust government. Rather, the point is that if we’re going to fight, then the fight must be “worth it,” so to speak. For instance, even if you are fighting an evil enemy, it would be immoral for you to gather a bunch of your comrades to charge a machine gun with pitchforks only to get mowed down.
Nobody doubts that the German Nazi and Japanese imperial governments are evil. But can the insurgency against these governments be morally justified given the seemingly insurmountable odds faced by the American resistance movement?
We can’t help but be initially skeptical, especially given the ruthless efficiency of Chief Inspector Kido, Obergruppenführer John Smith, and their respective agencies at infiltrating and hunting down the resistance. The fact that Joe Blake is secretly working for Smith doesn’t exactly provide much reassurance either. This skepticism presumably explains why Frank wants nothing to do with the Resistance when he learns that Juliana has become involved.
This skepticism is reinforced when we consider that the Resistance movement itself doesn’t seem to have much to offer in terms of a reasonable prospect of success. They are out-organized, outgunned, underfunded, and are no match for the intelligence services of the Nazi and Japanese governments. The extent to which the Nazis have infiltrated the Resistance (both with Joe Blake and the undercover SD agent in Canon City) doesn’t generate much confidence in their ability to make a meaningful dent in the Axis regime. True, they might’ve had some small successes—the near assassination of Obergruppenführer Smith, for example—but their overall efficacy has so far been questionable. Indeed, the botched assassination attempt was possible only because Smith’s enemies—Oberst-Gruppenführer Heydrich and Captain Connolly—provided them with the necessary information.
However, there seems to be something to the mysterious newsreel films from the Man in the High Castle that might very well give the resistance the moral justification required to mount a just rebellion against the Axis governments. The almost magical content of the films, combined with Hitler’s peculiar interest in finding them and the willingness of Resistance members such as Trudy Walker to die for them, suggests that the Resistance may very well have a fighting chance after all. The films may not offer complete assurance of success (indeed, at least one film depicts the nuclear bombing of San Francisco along with Frank’s execution at the hands of Joe!), but they do seem to offer at least a reasonable basis for believing that a Resistance victory is possible.
Proportionality
Proportionality is an attempt to balance the scales of justice. For a rebellion to be proportionate, the goal that is sought must not exceed the harm that was
incurred, nor must the force used to achieve this goal be excessive. In this case, the harm incurred was the violent destruction of the legitimate American government and the corresponding evils that were forced upon the population. Considered in this light, this goal of the American Resistance is clearly proportionate, as what they are seeking is the destruction of the illegitimate Axis governments. What’s more, given the extremely limited resources of the Resistance, excessive force is simply a non-issue for them—at least for the time being. If anything, the Resistance needs to use more force!
Last Resort
Armed rebellion is only justified when a government as a whole becomes incorrigibly corrupt. This is tricky to cash out in precise terms, but one way to think about it is in terms of a corrupt value system. Lawmaking is never completely arbitrary. Laws are commands or ordinances that are based on reasons. These reasons reflect a core value system from which the government acts to promote its agenda. If this core value system is diametrically opposed to the natural law, then any government that adopts that system does not have the common good in mind.
These criteria are obviously met by both the Nazi and Japanese governments, as depicted, insofar as genocide, racism, and deprivation of due process are institutionalized as part of their core value systems. The dictatorial form of government makes it practically impossible for these worries to be addressed via democratic or legislative means, leaving force as the only option.
The Man in the High Castle and Philosophy Page 13