subject: The Magus - Analysis [print this page] In the excerpt from The Magus the character Conchis is telling the story of the German occupation and the decisions he made at gunpoint, apparently many years later. As he tells his story he claims that his decision defied reason and that the alternative felt wrong to him. By his reflections one would believe it was an issue for subjectivism, but by his thoughts and actions at the actual time of the war I assert it conforms to Kant's theory. During Conchis reflection and telling of his story he speaks of his decisions and actions as being completely emotional. He sees both his decisions and reactions as being based on emotions where I see them as being clearly based on rational thought, which he illustrates himself and I will compound on below. The only cause of his outlook we are given is one that is implied and, or interpreted. I see it as a possibility that he was traumatized by the things he saw, the situations he was put into, and perhaps even the decisions he made. Conchis proves his reasoning multiple times through his reactions, thoughts, decisions, and actions, including in the last page of the passage where despite how emotional it is he weighs the two options he has and as a moral, and therefore rational, agent; makes a decision. I will talk about these issues specifically below, and how Kant's theory disproves the adequacy of subjectivism in its application to this excerpt. Throughout the excerpt we see through Conchis' thoughts that he is a rational, free, though to what degree and definition we may debate, autonomous being. As I mentioned before he himself illustrates these on the last page. These are the three requirements Kant lays down for one to be a moral agent. I am not merely applying this facet of deontology to the excerpt, the excerpt applies itself to the theory.
"I understood then. I was to club them to death. I understood many things. His real self, his real position. And from there came the realization that he was mad, and that he was therefore innocent, as all mad people, even the most cruel, are innocent. He was what life could do if it wanted, an extreme possibility made hideously mind and flesh. Perhaps that was why he could impose himself so strongly, like a black divinity. For there was something superhuman in the spell he cast. And therefore the real evil, the real monstrosity in the situation lay in the other Germans, those less than mad lieutenants and corporals and privates who stood silently there watching this exchange." (394)
He doesn't hold this man accountable, but those who sit by and allow this madness are the ones he sees as morally wrong because they are moral agents like himself. I find this to be counter to subjectivism as his feelings toward Wimmel are based off of rational thought instead of the emotions themselves, in the way that he does not blame this man for causing so much suffering and forcing him into a dichotomy of helping the Germans by killing two men and being used for propaganda, or letting 80 people and himself die. In the end he could not help this madness by becoming its means to this 'order out of chaos' so decided to join the condemned and yet he does not express any hatred for this man throughout the passage. He exercises what he reasons to be right, by his own volition as a moral agent. This is the difference he sees between himself and the German and Austrian soldiers. We see various decisions and reactions being made by Conchis, which appears spot on with the categorical imperative. These include him speaking to one of the guerillas before he is torture , his reactions to the choices he is presented with , and his final decision about the execution itself . I see the categorical imperative as a possible motive for his actions. Despite the cost of his own life, and the hostages, he is not willing to kill the two guerillas to save the rest of them. Kant, or others, may say that the guerillas were exercising their autonomy in wanting their actions to be universal law, and thus would accept the retribution of the Germans. The end of the passage we see Conchis in this position placing his actions as a universal action, a universal maxim. There are other facets of deontology which are no less valid than those stated above which this excerpt conforms to. One key reason why Conchis may be so revolted by the Germans is their abuse of their victims liberty, be it the mayor himself, his villagers, or even the German officers such as Wimmel whose 'duty' is to bring order to Europe. Whether against those who are not moral agents, such as Wimmel, or those who are, such as the other German soldiers and Austrians, he decides not to be subject to them and resists. There is a combination of possible and likely motivations from Kant's theory that fit Conchis thoughts and actions. Subjectivism is faulty in its function to explain these issues and be properly applied to this excerpt. Conchis' decisions were guided by a series of rational thoughts, reactions, and choices.
