Goldstein addresses her response directly to Simon. She wonders why Karl feels he has the right to die in peace. She notes that Karl summons Simon not as an individual but as a Jew—any Jew. Simon, by contrast, recognizes Karl’s humanity quite clearly.
Goldstein highlights the continued inequality in the fact that Simon humanizes Karl, while Karl continues to view him as a generic symbol of a people.
Goldstein believes that when Karl turned from Christianity to Nazi ideology, his moral nature did not change much at all. He did not see the Jews around him with whom he was well acquainted (like the family doctor) as human beings. He only began to take pause when murdering them in large numbers.
Goldstein points out other examples whereby Karl showed his bias. Even knowing a few Jews individually in his everyday life did not prevent him from being able to oppress them on a mass scale.
Karl came to see his guilt to some extent, but not fully, Goldstein writes. If he had truly seen his guilt, he would have understood that he was beyond forgiveness and would never have asked for it.
Goldstein’s logic here creates a paradox: if Karl had wanted forgiveness, he would have known not to ask for it because he would have fully appreciated the magnitude of his crimes. This again positions murder as unforgiveable.