Aimee & Jaguar
(1999) is a film based on a true story centering on Felice, a Jewish woman who
lived in Berlin until 1944 and belonged to an underground lesbian, anti-Nazi (spying)
organization. To be a Jewish lesbian in Nazi Germany cannot have been an easy
life, with possible catastrophe just around the corner on any given day. In the film, Felice becomes romantically
involved with Lilly, a mother of four and wife to a Nazi solder who is fighting
at the eastern front. The film is essentially a love story between the two
women. I want to draw out some of the ethical issues raised in the film—with the
love story serving as my critique of two ethical theories—utilitarianism and
duty-based ethics—that are implied in the film.
Bentham’s ethical theory of utilitarianism has for its goal the greatest good, which is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, for the greatest number of people. In terms of distribution, the principle can justify allocating a lot of money to some groups—whose individuals can be expected to get a lot of pleasure out of the funds—while depriving other groups of any money because they would not get a lot of pleasure out of even the limited funds. Invest in pleasure where most of it is likely to result. It is the consequence, rather than the means, that is important.
Under such a lopsided distribution as making what money
there is available to non-Jewish Germans, the notion of declining marginal
utility means that a lot more money would have to be added to the rich Germans
to give pleasure equal to that which would come from giving the impoverished
groups even just a little money. The utility of 1 DM, for instance, after getting
99 DM is less than the utility after getting 2 DM. This point is illustrated in
the film.
In one scene, a fur-wearing, wealthy German woman, sensing
that Felice and her three friends, Ilse, Lotte, and Klara, in the bathroom are
hungry, and Jewish, sells them food-stamps for nothing less than 200 marks—an extravagant
sum judging from the reaction of the three Jews. Based on declining marginal
utility, it would take such a sum of money for the pleasure obtained by the
rich woman to equal the pleasure from the mere food-stamps accruing to the four
Jews. Hence, the exploitation.
The utilitarian distribution cutting off some people or entire
groups from funds needed for daily sustenance can be extended to include outright
extermination. In Nazi Germany, exterminated groups included the Communists,
homosexuals, and Jews. Felice and her three friends were on the losing end in
at least two of the three. It is ethically problematic that Bentham’s theory
could be used in such a way to justify investing only in people who are most
able to be happy (feel pleasure), whether from inner constitution or by
external circumstance. Maximizing the pleasure in a society overall is an aim
that can justify means that can easily be viewed as unethical. In fact, the
resulting pleasure overall, as it is distributed in society (i.e., unequally) can
be viewed as unethical. Fortunately, we can turn to Kant to make up for Bentham’s
lapses.
In contrast to Bentham’s theory, Immanuel Kant held that
people have a duty to treat other rational beings not merely as means, but also
as ends in themselves. Reason, by which we assign value to things (and people)
is itself of absolute value, and so rational beings should not be treated
merely as means, but are worthy by virtue of having reasoning capability of
being treated as ends in themselves. This version of Kant’s Categorical
Imperative is similar to the Golden Rule in Christianity (Kant was Christian).
For the Nazi leaders to treat groups of people as means only to a Nazi vision
of society and race would be for Kant, unethical.
Yet
is it reasoning that gives humanity its absolute value? In the film, Felice
refuses to go with her friends on a train to safety in Switzerland because she
loves Aimee and thus wants to stay with her; the decision taken is not rational, for Felice must know that she could
have gone and returned after the fall of the Third Reich; she must also have
known that she would probably not survive for long, even if the days of Nazi
Germany were obviously limited. “A catastrophe,” Aimee’s mother says when she
learns, after Felice has returned from the train station, that she is not only
her daughter’s girlfriend, but also Jewish. In such a context, how much value
can we put on Felice’s love for Aimee? It seems to me that reason cannot assign
value to such an object of such power, so such value must be undefined, and
thus absolute. Means and even lofty ends that slight the human natural ability
to love face an uphill fight in claims to being ethical rather than unethical.
