Karl says that survival is inherently selfish (p.248). Do you agree or disagree? Why?
I think, in a way, this is true. Survival can mean doing anything to keep yourself alive - even at the cost of other lives. In extreme circumstances like war and the Holocaust, people surely put themselves before others to ensure survival.
Survival mode is a real thing, I think it is basic human instinct to strive for safety and life. Selfish though? I’m not sure, it would depend on the person and the circumstance. There are amazing individuals, heroes, who sacrifice themselves so that others might live, but I think the majority of people default to saving themselves and their loved ones. I think Karl was trying to comfort Bertie in his anguish of leaving Gert behind. If Bertie had tried to save Gert, all three of them (Gert, Bertie, and Sophie) could very well have died.
I do think it can be selfish to survive. It can be thinking of yourself instead of others and even doing small actions that help you. I am not saying it is wrong, the survival instinct is strong and just because you did not help someone else does not make you a bad person. Survival guilt is tough enough without putting more pressure on the survivor.
I suppose there’s a good argument to be made that survival is selfish, but what’s the alternative? Knowingly put yourself in a situation where you assuredly won’t survive to prove you’re altruistic?One could argue that surviving is actually rebellion against injustice and giving voice to those who didn’t survive. Many survivors of the Holocaust have told their stories over and over in the sometimes futile hope that history won’t repeat. Given the current attitudes around much of the world about LGBQT people, one would be forgiven if discouragement sets in. But the very fact of existing, and even thriving, is testimony of their humanity and worth.
1 Like