Man is a rationalizing animal. There comes a point, however, when rationalizations become so threadbare that they cease to be serviceable. That point, however, may differ from one culture to another.
The Strange Love of Martha Ivers is a 1946 melodrama that centers on a woman who, at different periods of her life, killed two innocent people. She then tried, hopelessly, to find peace of mind by rationalizing that what she did could be blown away “just like nothing ever happened.” As the movie draws to a close, the murderess, played convincingly by Barbara Stanwyck, is forced to face the truth of what she had done.
She makes one final attempt to hide her shame under the cover of her thin rationalizations. Referring to her two victims, she asks, “What were their lives compared with mine? . . . Not any one of them had a right to live.” A murderess presuming to be a moral standard, however, rings hollow. She refers to her first victim as, “A mean, vicious, hateful, old woman who never did anything for anybody.” Then, alluding to the inheritance she gained by virtue of the murder, says, with melodramatic pride, “Look what I’ve done with what she left me. I’ve given to charity, built schools, hospitals, given thousands of people work.”
There is a fatal flaw in her defense. Would the people she helped through her “charity” have been any different or in lesser need of help than the two whom she murdered. The beneficiaries of her charity were faceless. The two people she did away with were people she knew. Her alleged charity was merely a pose. A charitable person is not a murderer. Her protestations became evermore unconvincing, even to her. She reached her wits end and invited her husband to end her life. He complied and then turned the gun on himself.
Despite its four murders, the movie is actually pro-life. It sends the message that no one can presume to be the judge of who shall live and who shall die, and reinforces the Biblical maxim that “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.”
In the present culture, the rationalizations employed by Stanwyck’s character do not seem as threadbare as they apparently did in 1946. Peter Singer, for example, finds it easy to rationalize killing babies who do not seem to be good candidates for what he calls a “preferred state.” According to Singer, “When the death of the disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed.” Multiplying the number of killers in the world, however, does not seem to be a practical formula for producing a better world. And how shall we determine where the boundary is that separates the “preferred” from the others, those who have a right to live from those who do not?
Had Peter Singer written the script for The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, he might have employed the following ending: “You’re right, Martha, your charitable contributions made it possible for countless people to enjoy a preferred state of life. You are a true philanthropist. And you were able to do this because you had the courage to eliminate what was standing in their way, two useless individuals who were nothing but a drain on society.” Husband and wife then embrace. Fade out. THE END
“Like” Truth and Charity Forum on Facebook!
One may well wonder what is required for people in today’s society to recognize how threadbare and unconvincing current rationalizations are that allow the Culture of Death to maintain its force. “We make a living by what we get,” wrote Winston Churchill; “We make a life by what we give.” Martha Ivers became wealthy. Without doubt, she made a good living. Yet her life was disintegrating, as her rationalizations could no longer keep pace with her conscience. Killing is not a form of giving. “Getting” does not ensure a “preferred state.” We all have the inalienable right to live. What we do not have is the right to judge who shall and who shall not live. Nor does anyone have the right to implement such a judgment.
1946 seems eons away. Yet rationalizations endure, whereas a culture’s ability to see through them needs to be re-learned and re-affirmed.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. Doctor DeMarco is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and he is Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, CT.
He is the author of 22 books, including; Architects of the Culture of Death, The Many Faces of Virtue, The Heart of Virtue, and New Perspectives on Contraception. He has authored several hundred articles in scholarly journals and in anthologies, and articles and essays appearing in other journals and magazines and in newspapers; and innumerable book reviews in a variety of publications.
His education includes: B.S. Stonehill College, North Easton, MA 1959 (General Science); A.B. Stonehill College, 1961 (Philosophy); Gregorian University, Rome, Italy, 1961-2 (Theology); M.A. St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY, 1965 (Philosophy); and Ph.D. At. John’s Univ., 1969 (Philosophy). His Master’s dissertation was “The Basic Concept in Hegel’s Dialectical Method” and his Doctor’s dissertation was “The Nature of the Relationship between the Mathematical and the Beautiful in Music”.
He is married to Mary Arendt DeMarco and they have five children.
