This blog post follows the meaning of tradition and funeral rites chosen by Saul, the protagonist of the film Son of Saul, to deeply examine what dignity and ethics humans cling to until the very end, even in extreme survival situations.
What justification does the act of sacrificing oneself for tradition and nation hold from a modern ethical perspective? Is this an anachronistic ideology, brainwashed from past ruling classes, or a universally scalable ‘good deed’? At the very least, no one would see Saul’s actions as merely an anachronistic ideology. Considering the temporal and spatial setting of the film’s unfolding, and the horrific reality Saul experiences within it, his actions transcend a simple individual ethical decision. It must be seen as a fierce struggle to preserve humanity amidst survival, despair, and the collapse of community. Whether the child Saul devoted all his efforts to burying was truly the Son of Saul is irrelevant. Saul’s actions seem to embody the ‘unavoidable heart’ (satan) that Mencius spoke of when advocating the theory of innate goodness.
So, is Saul’s behavior formed solely from a good heart, independent of all that? If so, where does this good heart come from? In the film, Saul does not merely give the child a funeral; he strives to give it a funeral according to Jewish tradition. In this scene, Saul’s actions transcend simple moral behavior, emphasizing the importance of tradition and culture. Tradition is not merely a relic of the past; it is an element that provides meaning and direction to those living in the present. For Saul, tradition is both the reason he must live and an expression of his devotion to the community he belongs to. Even while being swindled by a con artist, he strives to uphold his own tradition, which he believes to be right. The film’s narrative largely progresses through the pursuit of tradition and resistance against authority. Even beyond the Jewish case, the ethics shared by a community bound as a people impart universal morality to its members with inherent legitimacy. Because my father and mother did so, because my teacher did so, because my friends do so, the actions demanded by the ethnic community become justified and internalized. They become the right thing to do.
Resistance against authority follows the same logic. Saul’s actions are both a struggle for traditional commemoration and resistance against the ruling power. Fighting for the dead while facing his own uncertain death cannot be seen merely as pity for the child. Such actions can be read as the ultimate defense of human dignity and rebellion against power. As a member of his community, Saul seeks to uphold the values and beliefs that community has maintained to the very end. Within an ethnic community, members of the same ethnicity are regarded almost as one family, and within a family community, family members hold value equal to or greater than themselves. When that person is designated by the special relationship of being a child, that sentiment is maximized. Uncovering the death of a desperate fellow countryman and mourning him can simultaneously be seen as a struggle to save oneself, who is in the same predicament. In this process, those who resist inevitably clash with authority. He pursued resistance until the very end and never lost his Jewish pride.
What then remains for those who lose such tradition and ethics? The film introduces a fake rabbi who abandons the community’s tradition and ethics. For a person who abandons tradition out of fear of the violence of authority, no moral guideline is provided. They live a life of deception and betrayal of ethics for their own survival and security, belonging nowhere, wandering until the very end. Through this character, the film powerfully warns of the moral void that arises when humans betray their beliefs and traditions. The story of the fake rabbi shows how miserable the consequences can be when humans lose their roots and direction. Given the film’s progression, he inevitably meets death. What remains after his death? Nothing remains in the life of a human who lives without anything to believe in or follow. Even a nihilist lives believing in the proposition that life is meaningless. A life lived solely for immediate survival, devoid of any belief, is no different from that of a beast.
Looking back at past discourses on ethnic communities, one naturally recalls the ethnic hatred and exclusive ethical standards prevalent today. Does the ethics of an ethnic community consider only its own members as subjects of moral consideration? Regrettably, that is highly likely. The film illuminates the dual nature of nationalism through this, warning how the ethical principles of a specific ethnic group can function exclusively against others. This remains a pertinent issue today, suggesting the danger that each ethnic group’s identity and tradition can lead to exclusion or hatred towards others. Various methods exist to bind a particular group into a shared community; for the Jewish people, it is based on the concept of the Chosen People. “The Jews’ ‘self-awareness’ can be summarized in the words ‘exclusivity’ and ‘uniqueness.’” This statement best reveals the Jewish national identity.
So how can we connect moral values in a diversified, globalized modern society with the internalization of ethics using the national community? A figure to consider here is Foreman Biedermann. Biedermann, the foreman, neither spoke Hebrew nor was Jewish. Yet he empathized with their despair, supported them, and ultimately faced death. His ethical framework, formed during an era when nationalist empires spread like a global epidemic, likely stemmed from Germany’s ethnic community. Precisely at this point, we can anticipate the expansion of an ethnic community’s ethical framework into universal morality. Interestingly, the ethics formed from the stories and shared empathy of different communities share many intersections. One must not kill another person, one must show consideration for others, and one must rescue those in danger. The morality formed from, or given to us by, our survival and safety is infused into ethics. This suggests that specific ethics can be expanded into universal morality.
The film’s final scene ends by illuminating two nations moved by universal morality. Between Saul, who ultimately lost his son, and the boy he encountered, and the German who protected the boy until the German soldiers passed by, only the categorical imperative to protect the child remains. Ethics and morality are constantly reinterpreted and reconstructed to fit new eras and situations within a process of perpetual change and expansion. This final scene powerfully suggests the possibility of human empathy and universal morality between the two peoples. Above all, this scene presents the possibility of recognizing and mutually respecting shared moral values and human dignity that transcend the boundaries of ethnicity.
Ultimately, Son of Saul emphasizes that while ethnicity and tradition are important, we must not forget universal human values and morality. It offers a positive outlook: that national ethics and universal morality can be mutually complementary and interconnected, laying the foundation for a greater human community, cooperation, and empathy. The film demonstrates that these two concepts are not in conflict, but rather complement each other and are essential elements for building a better human society. It tells us that while the world has yet to fully escape the discourse of nationalism, it still holds hope for continuing to develop ethics by expanding them as universal morals.
