The Moral Logic Of Survivor's Guilt Summary

Events that occur randomly and are traumatic can take a toll on all aspects of an individual that endure them, what if an individual were in a gruesome situation and the lives of human beings were lost under their unintentional control? How would they feel for the rest of their lifetime? In the article “The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt” by Nancy Sherman, she describes the emotional reality of soldiers at their home are often at odds with the civilian public, and are struggling to garry the burden of feeling responsible of traumatic situations. Survivor’s guilt is the profound feeling that survivors have after a tragic event taking place when others have passed away. Soldiers in battle experience losses during combat. They will have a subjective

feeling of guilt, have thoughts of that they betrayed their family, and have feelings of empathy to attempt to humanize war soldiers and society. She goes on to state the story of Captain Adrian Bonenberger, who is the head of a unit in, Afghanistan, considering the questions of guilt after Specialist Jeremiah Pulaski, was killed by the police after a bar fight when he returned home. Pulaski save Bonenberger’s life in Afghanistan twice in one day, but Bonenberger could not be there to help him.

Bonenberger now feels responsible for no logical sense. This is considered subjective guilt, the feeling of being responsible of a traumatic event, but should be thought to be irrational. Next, she talks about Nietzsche, a modern philosopher coining the phrase bad conscience, which means the feeling of guilt where there was no wrongdoing. Soon, she states the story of Private Joseph Mayek, who died after an accident of a fighting vehicle misfiring. His officer in charge, Captain John Prior, has the feeling of responsibility, due to the fact that he ordered the replacement battery in the turret in the vehicle, causing the accident, even though he did not know what would happen and the consequence. Lastly, she closes out the article by summarizing that moral repair is the duty to self forgiveness and empathy, beginning after survivor's guilt. Furthermore, people in survival situations should not be held accountable for their actions, because we too often take responsibility beyond what we can be held responsible for, and that one understands that he or she has done no wrongdoing on

purpose.

Moreover, people should not be held accountable for their actions in survival situations, because we too often take responsibility beyond what we can be held responsible for. In “The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt” by Nancy Sherman, one has done no wrong, but still has guilt, even in situations that are unexpected, as this happens way too much, and that those who have done wrongdoing should be feeling guilty. She states, “We often take responsibility in a way that goes beyond what we can reasonably be held responsible for. And we feel the guilt that comes with that sense of responsibility. Nietzsche is the modern philosopher who well understood this phenomenon: “Das schlechte Gewissen,” (literally, “bad conscience”)-his term for the consciousness of guilt where one has done no wrong, doesn’t grow in the soil where we would most expect it, he argued, such as in prisons where there are actually “guilty” parties who should feel remorse for wrongdoing.” Illustrating, this proves that we take the responsibility for actions that we did not do, and should not feel any remorse, but that the people who have done wrongdoing, should have this feeling of guilt. We should not be held accountable from the actions that we did not mean to do in survival situations. Afterward, one should not be held accountable for their actions in survival situations, because he or she has done no wrongdoing on purpose. In “The Moral Logic of Survivor Guilt” by Nancy Sherman, she explains the philosophy of Bernard Williams, and that in situations of survival and on the battlefield, one of bad luck, has no culpability for the harms and has to get rid of it through their “agency”, but are not responsible for what happened. She states, “Many philosophers have looked to other terms to define the feeling. What they have come up with is “agent-regret” (a term coined by the British philosopher Bernard Williams, but used by many others). The classic scenario is not so much one of good luck (as in survivor guilt), but of bad luck, typically having to do with accidents where again, there is little or no culpability for the harms caused. In these cases, people may be causally responsible for harm-they ring about the harm though their agency-but they are not morally responsible for what happened.” Specifically, this means that people of bad luck from accidents in survival situations, are not morally responsible for what has happened, and they have just encountered bad luck, so they should not be held accountable for what has supervened. However, on the contrary others think that people in survival situations should be held accountable because they understood consequences and can take massive operations at high costs of money. In “The Cost of Survival” by Theo Tucker, he describes the situation on the coast of Mexico, where a family understood the dangers of bringing a newborn out to sea and travel across the world, and had several organizations to help rescue them at a high price. Theo described, “Two big news stories of 2014 involved rescue missions. In one, a family of four called for help when their child became ill. THey were on a sailboat 900 miles off the coast of Mexico. Their rescue involved the U.S. Navy, the Coast Guard, and the California Air National Guard.” He later on went to speak back about the story in the article, and stated, “The rescue of the family stranded at sea cost $663,000. That figure does not include pay for the rescue workers.” This proves that the family knew the situation of surviving, but still made the televised move. Unfortunately, the taxpayers had to pay for the rescue and the family did not have to pay anything at all. Most people would state that the family should be held accountable for their actions.

Onwards, it is most logical that people should not be held accountable for their actions in survival situations, because people never fully understand the consequences of their actions during this state of mind.

Furthermore, in the passage “The Seventh Man” by Haruki Murakami, during the rising action of the story, the Seventh Man began to talk about how he was best friends with K and how he loved and cared for him immensely, as they would do everything together. The Seventh Man stated “Ever since I could remember, my best friend was a boy I’ll call K. His house was close to ours, and he was a grade behind me in school. We were like brothers, walking to and from school together, and always playing together when we got home. We never once fought during our long friendship. I did have a brother, six years older, but what with the age difference and differences in our personalities, we were never very close. My real brotherly affection went to my friend K.” In addition, after the typhoon struck the city, and K’s body was never found, K’s parents, the Seventh Man’s parents, and the city folks never discussed or aroused the topic of conversation about what happened that night, because they knew how important K was to the Seventh Man. For example, the text stated, “As a great a blow as this had been for them, though, K’s parents never chided me for having taken their son down to the shore in the midst of a typhoon. They knew how I had always loved and protected K as if he had been

my own little brother. My parents, too, made a point of never mentioning the incident in my presence.” Illustrating, this proves that the Seventh Man loved and cared for K, and never knew the consequences of his actions during this age, showing that the Seventh Man should forgive himself for K’s death, and should not be held accountable for his actions in the survival situation.

In conclusion, people should not be held accountable for their actions in survival situations, because we too often take responsibility beyond what we can be held responsible for, and that one understands that he or she has done no wrongdoing on purpose, and never fully know the consequences of actions in survival situations. Overall, these type of situations are drastic and horrible to witness or hear about, as they have gone through physical and mental struggles beyond this point, as this is already a damaging blow to themselves, they should not be accountable for their actions.