Introduction
Emmanuel Levinas was a French philosopher who heavily relied on the bible for the justifications of his moral philosophy. He was born in the 12th January, 1906 and died in December 25th, 1995. Among his works that he is best remembered for is the contribution that he made to the social responsibility theory. He is particularly credited for the role he played in developing the philosophical idea that ‘I’ (referring to anyone by then) takes the whole responsibility to the ‘other’ (another human being). Levinas was a French philosopher and he was a student of both Husserl and Heiddeger. These two philosophers greatly influenced the philosophers of the 20th century. Levinas being among them. Levinas is also remembered for the critique he made to the metaphysics of presence, cognition of violence among many other controversial philosophies that arose during his time. However, his theory of ethics of responsibility which, as he argued, we should see through the face of the other, has been widely accepted. In giving out this theory, Levinas defied the odds since by the time he was making the claim for this theory, several ‘postmodernists’ never agreed with the arguments for ethics in the society. His attempt to give relevance to the ethics did not rely on theism and universal principles. The face of the ethics that he was trying to explain was based on the day to day experiences that human beings encounter while interacting with other people. As he argued later, “with the appearance of the human-- and this is my entire philosophy-- there is something more important than my life, and that is the life of the other."(Cohen, 2001)
As he understood, his idea was based on moving beyond the normal formulations. As such, human beings ought to work with the fact that they should be responsible for the other persons. This, he argued, was because we are all human, including ‘the other’ person. On the face value of it, this is a very difficult idea to be implemented. However, one of its shortcomings is that the theory focuses entirely on the responsibilities to and by other human beings. The responsibility to things that are inhumane or responsibility to the world is not covered in Levisian’s theory, further raising eyebrows on how the world would be if the inhuman things were not taken responsibility of (Cohen, 2001).
Levinas termed his theory as being the ‘Ethics as First Philosophy’. In the theory, he is very critical on the role that an individual plays in ensuring that the other is responsible. The summons to responsibility, as he later argued, were necessary to destroying the formulas of generality through which one gets to know the other person and consider them as to ‘my fellow man.’ Levinas further argued that ‘I’ is very unique in the face of the other man and as such, very responsible for any actions that they may undertake.
What Levinas provided was a description of the responsibilities that one carries in the event of an encounter with the other person. This is what brings all men in the earth to the absolute responsibility. However, the absolute responsibility depicted by Levinas raises several questions which are very difficult to answer. For instance, it is very difficult for an individual to deduce what it means to them by the fact that they have infinite responsibility and obligations to the other person. What are they supposed to do then? Through this question, the theory of Ethics and Social responsibility as explained by Levinas is highly doubted and very difficult to understand.
This theory, simply explained, means that the ethical and social responsibility as proposed and argued by Levinas, requires that individuals should always be in a position to think and act on behalf of the other person before one can act themselves. This is a very difficult situation to envisage in the earth. For instance, the theory requires that if A is involved in an argument with B, then A should first consider B’s interests in the argument before taking into consideration their own interests. It is highly unlikely in the world where the resources are scarce and up for competition to think of a situation in which one does not take their interests first and instead focus on the other’s interests. Another difficulty for this theory arises when it comes to who should be considered as the other person and be served first. If for instance, person A and B confront each other and this theory should be employed, who should act first? This theory, much like the other philosophies that were made during this century, is very controversial. It raises several questions than answers.
This theory that was developed by Levinas may lead to several deductions being made. For instance, responsibility may be termed and be viewed as a destroyer to the worldly formulas that represent generality through which the knowledge of the other man represents to a person as being their fellow men. The generality of the moral theories is therefore shattered by the primary ethical responsibility which should be directed to other people. As such, the other person remains to be superior to the conceptual knowledge.
The Levinasian theory greatly contradicts with the moral theories. This is because through the ethics and social theory, the most basic desires in helping the other persons are overlooked. A theory, to a greater extent, should be a reflection of what a person emotionally or psychologically feels. As such, putting oneself in the face of the other person and feeling for them is seen as an almost impossible task. Representation therefore fails the other. The main reasons for this are that it, to a larger extent, means that a person circumscribes the moral feelings that exist in the other persons and make them their own feelings (Moyn, 2005).
It is a general fraility in human beings to see the essence of the other person while ensuring responsibility. Because of this, the requirement is that when a person meets the other person, they should automatically become aware of the things that are beyond them. The other person is therefore represented as the first person. However, according to the theory, the otherness of the other person is incognizable. As such, the self-sovereign of the first person (subject, I) is in a position to be affected by the other person’s radical exteriority. A person is therefore expected to realize the absolute otherness when they look into the face of the other person.
It is almost impossible to think on the applicability part of this theory. Throughout the Levinasian Ethics and social theory, human beings are expected to have saintly ethics in which they first consider the other persons before considering themselves. A common sentence that was used by Levinasian when talking about the saints and the saintly looks that individuals should have was that “we cannot not admire saintliness”. Through this, it is a very crucial aspect in the life of a human being to be attached more to the being of the other person more than one is attached to themselves. As such, this theory proposes that the human beings are commanded to look and respect the life of the other people even at circumstances where doing so is disadvantageous to the subject. It is difficult to imagine such things happening in the real life. If, for instance, between two people, A and B, B decides to apply this theory that was developed by Levinasian and A decides to ignore it. In the event, person A attacks person B with the intention of killing him for some problems that were raised by person B. In such an event, the theory requires that person B should not retaliate. Instead, person B should see himself through the face of person A and understand the reasons as to why person A is behaving as such. The theory is a very difficult one to implement as not all the persons will be saintly and in the process of seeing oneself through the face of the other, damage ma may be done in the process and it would be almost impossible to reverse it (Moyn, 2005).
Levinas terribly failed in explaining his theory to the extent that he could persuade people to follow it. In the process of coming face to face with the other person, an infinite obligation is discovered. This infinite obligation is as regards to the development of anarchic responsibility. This may result in one incurring necessary debts without there being the possibility of payment. All the responsibilities the other person faces are hence handed down to the subject (I). The problem arises when only a single person decides to take this saintly look. Due to these reasons, a single individual who looks himself through the faces of many other persons would therefore be tasked with the responsibility of carrying all the problems that these other people should carry. At the end, one is faced with several responsibilities and debts that are not their own. This is a big call for any individual to carry and this has poured cold water to the theory (Perpich, 2008).
In developing this theory, the key tenets as proposed by Levinasian are that humans should view the responsibility of other people through their own eyes. As to the theory, no responsibility should be taken to the non-human things and the world in which these persons live in. Despite all the importance and the advantages that may be realized through people behaving saintly, the theory seems to be vague as it suggests that people should ignore any other form of responsibility that is not directed to humans. In explaining the Ethics and Infinity, Levinas argues that pure philosophy which is true to that point is only a possibility if the people decide to go by the social problem. As such, some sense is made to the ethical philosophy as the social problem may also be termed as a human problem. As such, the sociality that may be in the world can only stem from the engagement and interactions of human beings in the world, and therefore not separate from them. Problems that humans face in the world such as hungers among many more others are therefore brought by the human beings. Ignoring to take responsibility over them, as Levinasia suggests through his theory would therefore end up being suicidal in the community since it may lead to imbalances in the society. The ethics and social theory would therefore be pushed to the limits.
The Schindler’s list, on the other hand, is a movie of the American origin which was directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg and its events portray a historical drama. The film revolves around Schindler’s life, essentially saving many people’s lives that were of the Polish-Jewish origin. The help he provided them was through employing them in the factories that he owned.
In this film, Levinasian ethics and social theory have been demonstrated in a deep manner. As Levinas argued earlier, human beings need to look at other people through their face and before they make any judgment, they have to take into account the interests of the persons through whom they are looking themselves through. As such, one is tasked with the responsibility of others and should ensure that they live well. This is what the protagonist of the movie does and the actions rhyme to the theory that was developed by Levinas.
When Schindler settled in the city, many injustices were being directed to the refugees who were living in the ghetto. As a means of emptying the ghetto, the authorities decided to shoot and kill all the settlers of the ghetto. This was an inhuman act and responsibility is ignored. The actions portray the authorities as selfish people and at this moment, ethics and morals are ignored completely. However, Schindler was able to witness this massacre and as an effect, he is deeply affected by the happenings of these events. The film shows him noticing a tiny girl who was in a red coat trying to hide from the Nazis. He is deeply affected by the sight of a young lady facing potential danger. When, at the next moment, he sees a red color carried in a wagon which was loaded by bodies, Schindler becomes aware that the little lady could have been killed. Though he did not succeed to help the little girl in any manner, it is important to conclude that Schindler looked at himself through the eyes of the other person (the tiny girl) and felt for her.
Schindler, being kind-hearted, is later determined to take the other people’s responsibility in order to save them. This is something he did regardless of the problems that he could put himself into. Through this act, the ethics and social theory that is argued above was put into action. He managed to bribe Goeth in order to receive the SS support. As time went by, he managed to convince Goeth to allow him build the factories and move his workers there. However, his real intention was to ensure that these workers were protected from the potential killings by the Nazi. After completing the building of the factory, several people were moved there and as such, Schindler’s plan of saving the people worked magnificently. Through the film, the ethics and social theory is put into practice effectively. Instead of taking the advantage to enrich himself, Schindler was able to see himself through the face of the others and this is what prompted him to act in order to save them.
References
Cohen, R. A. (2001). Ethics, exegesis, and philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moyn, S. (2005). Origins of the other: Emmanuel Levinas between revelation and ethics. Ithaca, N.Y: Cornell University Press.
Perpich, D. (2008). The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.
