Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

The Ultimate Gift

Forgive your worst enemy. It will heal your soul, and it will set you free, Eva Mozes
Kor insists (Forgiving Dr. Mengele). She, in fact, has done so, choosing to grant amnesty to the
enemies of many: the Nazis, and more specifically Dr. Josef Mengele. Eva, along with her twin
sister Miriam and some 1,500 other sets of twins (and other individuals), underwent forced
experimentation at the hands of Auschwitzs Angel of Death (CANDLES). The Nazis stole a
year of Evas life, her parents, her two older sisters, and eventually her twin, whose life was
shortened as a result of an experiment that permanently suppressed the growth of her kidneys.
Dr. Mengele injected Eva with substances that almost killed her, but with determination, she
managed to survive. The twins were the lucky ones. They were better fed and slept in nicer
quarters than the other prisoners. Mengele wanted his guinea pigs alive, at least before the
experiments killed them (CANDLES). However, survival does not make one fortunate. Survivors
must still live with the memories, as Eva Kor does every day. That is why she has forgiven: to
remove some of that burden, some of the pain. This action, though, has created much
controversy. Some worry that forgiving means the same thing as forgetting. Others claim
that Mrs. Kor does not have the right to forgive. Outside of these considerations, there still
remains one important question: Can such a heinous crime as unethical human experimentation
ever be forgiven, by anyone? If this forgiveness promotes recovery, if it allows an individual to
function in spite of his or her troubles, then it must be permitted.
Does Dr. Mengele deserve forgiveness? Few today condone his actions, so forgiving is
the last thing one would expect a survivor to do. After all, how can one give up resentment of a
man who has taken away everything that he or she holds dear? Because of Mengeles violation
of innumerable basic principles of morality, many hesitate to excuse him. Kant demands that
each rational being treat himself and all others never merely as means but always at the same
time as an end in himself, and Mengele blatantly violated this concept (49). In what more direct
way can one use human beings than by removing their personhood, assigning them numbers, and
forcing them to sacrifice their bodies for the good of others? The Nazis also surely did not
consider Mills insistence that all persons are deemed to have a right to equality of treatment
(63). Perhaps under a faulty assumption that the Jews and other so-called inferiors had indeed
committed some crime, they followed more closely Mills other supposition that a person is
understood to deserve good if he does right, evil if he does wrong and therefore thought it their
right and their responsibility to punish those who they forced into the camps (45). Even so, such
an assumption proved to be amiss, and Mill judges the morality of ones acts on the basis of their
result, not intent (19). Mengele also violated Kants idea of universal laws, of the categorical
imperative. In no way could such a policy as the use of human subjects without their consent
exist on a large scale without undermining itself (Kant 15). The Nazis accepted their prisoners as
test subjects on the basis of their supposed inferiority. However, all groups can claim their
superiority over other groups and consequently experiment on these lowlier groups themselves.
If this cycle were to continue, then all groups would eventually experiment on another group,
consistently risking the health of the experimentees. In the end, Mengele and the Nazis in general
ignored so many moral principles that they do not deserve forgiveness. For them to expect to
receive it would only make their crimes more permissible. Just because the Nazis do not deserve
forgiveness, however, does not mean that their victims do not have the right to excuse them. To
put any more restrictions on the victims would only further render them powerless.
Does Eva Kor deserve to forgive the Nazis? To answer this question, one must first look
at why she has chosen to do so. Her journey to forgiveness began after she met Hans Mnch, a
1

Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

former Nazi doctor, who, unlike Mengele, was acquitted of his war crimes. Although Mnch
attempted to avoid killing any prisoners, as a Nazi, he still witnessed such proceedings, and
according to Mill, efforts are not sufficient if their result is not desirable (19). The memories still
haunt Mnch: This is the nightmare I live with every day of my life (Auschwitz to
Forgiveness). Seeing the deep regret that this man has for his actions, and believing him to be a
generally kind, likable man, Eva decided that he needed to put the past behind him just as much
as she did. Part of, and in fact the initial reason why she chose to grant amnesty, was to increase
not just her own happiness, but that of a fellow being. Mill clearly states that the happiness
which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agents own happiness
but that of all concerned (17). Those Nazis who truly feel sorry for the pain that they inflicted,
including Mnch, derive happiness from the notion that they have been pardoned, not just by the
state but by an actual victim. Eva also benefits, for in forgiving, she relieves herself of as much
pain as possible. By forgiving Dr. Mengele and all others involved, she lets them know that they
have power over her no more.
Beyond soothing an ex-Nazis conscience, Eva Kor chooses forgiveness because of what
it grants her personally. Eva Kor claims, Victims of every type of situation always feel hurt,
angry, hopeless, and powerless. And I discoveredthat I had tremendous powers.I had the
power to forgive the god of Auschwitz. (Auschwitz to Forgiveness). The main purpose of
Evas forgiveness is to affirm her own will, her control over her emotions. In this regard, she is a
modern day stoic. Epictetus makes it clear that if someone turned your body over to just any
person who happened to meet you, you would be angry. But are you not ashamed that you turn
over your faculty of judgment to whoever happens along, so that if he abuses you it is upset and
confused? (19). This statement fits Mrs. Kors situation exactly. Literally, her body had become
the property of Dr. Mengele. For a great deal of time she was indeed angry. Now, by forgiving
this whoever, she no longer lets him control her. She understands that the demons of the past
can only harm her if she lets them do so (Epictetus 21).
Is forgiveness a better form of healing than others? Some people attempt to punish their
oppressors, but Eva believes that getting even has never healed a single person (Forgiving Dr.
Mengele). If she were to have murdered former Nazis, for example, her actions would have been
at least understandable. After all, they had murdered her family, so why should she not take
away their lives as well? However, murder is still murder. Yet again according to Kants concept
of the categorical imperative, one cannot deem murder a morally good action (30). Doing so
would only create mass chaos and death. An eye for an eye does not work in the real world.
Because of this, murder, even with reason, results in punishment. Consequently, had Mrs. Kor
decided to seek revenge of this sort, she most likely would have been sentenced to prison or even
death. This Mrs. Kor would not be a stoic, for her vengeful acts would only further affirm Dr.
Mengeles ability to control her, to jail her, and to make her endure more suffering long after he
had left her life.
Were Eva Kors only options to forgive or to murder? Many Holocaust survivors choose
neither of those paths. They do not pardon. They do not kill. Instead, they live with these horrors
until the day they die. For them, to go on without pain would be to abandon their dead family
members, their friends, their people. Their anguish is their continuous solidarity with the ones
who were lost. You dont want to be happy, the children of another Mengele twin, Jona Laks,
tell her (Forgiving Dr. Mengele). These individuals, including Mrs. Laks, must have forgotten
that their unhappiness only further brings down the possible greatest happiness level of the
population that Mill lobbies for (17). Perhaps they reason that because their experiences have
2

Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

made it impossible for them to be completely happy, attempting to gain some sliver of happiness
is not worthwhile. However, this is false as well. Although all actions in an ideal world would
garner an infinite amount of happiness, Mill knows that this is not practical. Instead, even an
existence made up of few and transitory pains, many and various pleasureshas always
appeared worthy of the name of happiness (Mill 13). The survivors prior misfortunes should
not prevent them from finding happiness in their current lives. If anything, they should in fact
receive more happiness now than the average person to make up for their previous lack of it.
Despite Eva Kors and Mills insistence that Holocaust survivors have the right to live
without pain, many still refuse to believe this (Forgiving Dr. Mengele; Mill 7). At the very
least, they cannot accept the fact that anyone could electively forgive Dr. Mengele. Although
Eva Kor has repeatedly stated that she alone forgives the Nazis, many have misconstrued this
message (CANDLES). They claim that she is selfish: How can she speak in the name of the
people who are not alive anymore? (Forgiving Dr. Mengele). As long as they all suffer, she
must do so as well. However, is it not them who are more selfish, who will not permit a woman
who has found a way to heal herself to do so? Kant proclaims that autonomy is the ground of
the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature (41). As an individual, Eva Kor can and
has a right to make decisions on issues concerning her own person. When her rights to do so are
denied, her dignity is as well. Additionally, as already mentioned several times now, the most
appropriate action is the one that results in the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount
of pain for the greatest number of people (Mill 17). By forgiving, Eva Kor has significantly
increased her own happiness, and Dr. Mnch has surely benefited as well. Although others may
claim that Evas action has decreased their happiness, the Holocaust already left them with so
much pain that any they could receive from this action seems trivial. Maybe Evas act of
forgiveness will inspire others to do so as well, also increasing their happiness. If other victims
choose this option over getting even, which in the end would only produce more pain, then
forgiveness of Dr. Mengele is a moral action.
In additional to those people who feel that Eva Kors forgiveness will affect them
negatively, there are also those who worry about how it will influence the rest of society. Mrs.
Kors opponents are concerned that her pardoning of the Nazis will wipe their horrible misdeeds
from the minds of the world forever (Forgiving Dr. Mengele). They suggest that forgiving is
synonymous with forgetting. However, these opponents must not be familiar with the definition
of forgiveness. According to Merriam-Websters dictionary, to forgive is to give up resentment
of or claim to requital for, to grant relief from payment of, or to cease to feel resentment
against (an offender) (Forgive). Nowhere in this definition does one find the word forget,
and in no way is that Eva Kors goal. To her, forgiveness is nothing more and nothing less than
self-healing (Auschwitz to Forgiveness). By no longer resenting the Nazis actions, she has
become stronger. Eva Kor can share her story more easily and in doing so can remind people of
the horrors of both unethical experimentation and genocide so that it will not happen again. And
she has.
For many years, Eva Kor was silent about her experience during the Holocaust. Speaking
about it would only bring back the too real trauma, something no victim of violence wants to do.
Eva does not wish to remember the gas chambers, the smell of rot, the bodies that lined the
floors, but the images are burned into her memory (Auschwitz to Forgiveness). No one has to
worry about her forgetting, but she has to make sure that those who did not go through the
Holocaust themselves do not forget about it either. In 1984, Eva, along with help from her sister,
founded Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments, also known as CANDLES.
3

Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

Through this organization, they located 122 individual Mengele twins and interviewed them,
preserving their stories for future generations. A more astounding feat would come later though.
After Evas 1993 visit with Hans Mnch, and soon after her 1995 return to Auschwitz and
concurrent announcement of amnesty, she committed the rest of her life to Holocaust education
by opening the CANDLES museum in her current home of Terre Haute, Indiana. To this day,
she gives tours and tells her story there. She also travels the globe, regularly journeying back to
Auschwitz with educators. Throughout the United States, she gives lectures on the Holocaust,
on the importance of ensuring that experimentation conforms to ethical principles, and on the
benefits of forgiveness. In forgiving the Nazis, she certainly has not forgotten (CANDLES).
Eva Kor has attended summits on clinical research, discussing her opinion on the subject
(2011 Clinical Research Fellow Meeting). She of all people understands the importance of
regulating medical professionals. Looking at Mengeles atrocities, most people instinctively
recognize them as unethical. Sometimes, however, a fine line exists between what society deems
ethical and what it does not. After the Holocaust especially, many ethical review boards and
codes have abounded in an attempt to make the difference as distinct as possible. Regulation of
the medical profession began in 4th century BC with the introduction of the Hippocratic Oath, but
it was not until after World War II, in 1948, that the first international document which
advocated voluntary participation and informed consent came into existence: the Nuremberg
Code (Tyson; History of Research Ethics). Although the United States has passed numerous
follow-up acts, the Nuremberg Code still remains a cornerstone for the regulation of medical
research (Washington). After all, it follows earlier ethical principles that many have already
accepted. One underlying idea of the Nuremberg Code is the guarantee of the human subjects
autonomy, which Kant suggests is the property of the will of all rational beings (50). All
experimenters must receive the voluntary consent of the human subject, who must be free from
any form of constraint or coercion. Furthermore, the human subject should be at liberty to
bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation
of the experiments seems to him to be impossible (Nuremberg Code). Mills notion of the
good for the greatest number is also heavily present in the Nuremberg Code: The experiment
should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods
or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature (Mill 17; Nuremberg Code).
These measures are supposed to protect future human subjects in a way that was never thought
necessary until after Dr. Mengele. One can hope that the Nuremberg Code will prevent future
immoral proceedings, but no guarantee exists. Setting up a code is one thing. Enforcing it is
another.
Despite the Nuremberg Codes efforts to thoroughly regulate the world of human
experimentation, it still fails often. In the United States, it is frequently ignored. In recent years
and to this day, experimenters who have not received the consent of their subjects still proceed.
As during the Holocaust, many of the groups that are experimented on against their will are the
minorities. In 1995, for example, mostly black and Hispanic children were given a measles
vaccine without the consent of their parents. Other individuals who lack the ability to consent are
also used for experiments: the unconscious. One ongoing studys goal is to test the safety and
effectiveness of various emergency treatments for severe injury and cardiac arrest on 21,000
subjects who will be enrolled at random without giving their consent (Washington). Although the
lasting effects of these experiments may not be as severe as those of Dr. Mengeles, the act of
violation is still the same. Such utter disregard for autonomy should not still occur, and that is

Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

why Eva Kors current efforts to make people aware of the dangers of lack of consent are so
important.
In order to make sure that Eva Kor can continue to share her message with the rest of the
world, I have chosen to participate in paid ethical experiments in order to raise money for her
museum. Because the experiments I have been involved in are psychological in nature, they
follow the American Psychological Associations (APA) Ethics Code, which is similar in many
respects to the Nuremberg Code. Like the Nuremberg Code, the APAs code assures the
autonomy of the subjects and that the benefits to society outweigh the harm that could come to
the individual as a result of the experiments (Ethical Principles). Each experiment I was a
subject in certainly conformed to both the APA Ethics Code and the Nuremberg Code. Upon
arrival at the experiment site, I was presented with a long consent form that I had to read and
sign before the experiment began. The form assured me that I could withdraw from the
experiment at any time. These forms also stated exactly what procedures I would be going
through. So careful were the experimenters to avoid any ethics violations that the consent forms
specifically listed any boredom that could be incurred from the experiment as a potential cost to
the subject. All of the experiments that I participated in were run by Vanderbilt University and
consequently were overseen by Vanderbilts institutional review board (Vanderbilt University).
However, even with such an institution in place, ethics violations can still occur. By participating
in these experiments, I am hopefully giving the experimenters many of whom are graduate or
doctorate students the potential to practice experimental methods. Although the experiments I
participated in were not invasive and clearly fall on the side of ethical experimentation, there
may be some cases when these experimenters will have to perform experiments that fall closer to
the line of ethical uncertainty. Of course, it is not necessary for experiments to be semicontroversial to garner informative results, but sometimes it is required. By familiarizing
themselves with guidelines such as the Nuremberg Code by conducting these simpler
experiments, hopefully these experimenters-in-training will have the ability to refrain from
violating them in the future, and they will never need forgiveness from their subjects.
In the end, any individual, no matter the severity of the abuse inflicted upon him or her,
should have the ability to forgive. Forgiveness is always an act of peace. It can do no harm. Dr.
Mengele does not deserve forgiveness, but granting it to him is an act of self-affirmation for Eva
Kor. It makes her stronger, returning to her all of the power that Dr. Mengele took away from her
scared ten-year-old self. Most importantly, forgiveness allows Eva not only to live life as any
complete human being should, but to tour the country, telling her story over and over again until
someone genuinely listens and acts because of it. Controversy makes people pay attention. I
certainly did when I heard Mrs. Kor speak several years. My first reaction to her policy of
forgiveness was shock, but after contemplating it for all these years, I now realize why
forgiveness is the best option for her. That is why, despite my initial disagreement, I have
decided to donate the $150 I have made from psychological experiments to Eva Mozes Kor.
Although not an enormous gift in terms of monetary value, if one more person is inspired by her
because of it, my work will have been successful.

Miriam Goldstein

April 16, 2012

Works Cited
"2011 Clinical Research Fellow Meeting." Ddcf.org. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, 2011.
Web. 14 Apr. 2012.
Auschwitz to Forgiveness. Perf. Eva Mozes Kor. YouTube.com. YouTube, LLC, 22 Dec. 2009.
Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
CANDLES Holocaust Museum and Education Center. CANDLES Holocaust Museum and
Education Center. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
Epictetus. Handbook of Epictetus. Trans. Nicholas P. White. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983. Print.
"Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct." APA.org. American Psychological
Association, 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2012.
"Forgive." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.
Forgiving Dr. Mengele. Dir. Bob Hercules and Cheri Pugh. Perf. Eva Mozes Kor. Media Process
Group Inc., 2006. DVD.
"History of Research Ethics." UNLV.edu. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.
<http://research.unlv.edu/ORI-HSR/history-ethics.htm>.
Kant, Immanuel. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. James W. Ellington. 3rd ed.
Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993. Print.
Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. George Sher. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001. Print.
"Nuremberg Code." Office of Human Subjects Research. National Institutes of Health. Web. 15
Apr. 2012.
Tyson, Peter. "The Hippocratic Oath Today." PBS.org. PBS Online, 27 Mar. 2001. Web. 14 Apr.
2012.
Vanderbilt University Human Research Protection Program. Vanderbilt University, 2012. Web.
15 Apr. 2012.
Washington, Harriet A. "Non-Consenting Adults." Slate.com. The Slate Group, 22 Jan. 2012.
Web. 15 Apr. 2012.