Banality of evil

think and the problem of evil. Hannah Arendt elaborated on the notion of banality of evil through the case of Eichmann. She argues in Eichmann in Jerusalem that Eichmann, far from being a monster, was nothing less than a thoughtless bureaucrat, passionate only in his desire to please his superiors. She describes him in these words: “the unthinking functionary capable of enormous evil” who revealed “the dark potential of modern bureaucratic men”. According to Hannah Arendt, evil would not come from wicked

"It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us--the lesson of the fearsome, the word-and-thought-defying banality of evil" (252). The capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann, which evoked legal and moral controversy across all nations, ended in his hanging over four decades ago. The verdict dealing with Eichmann's involvement with the Final Solution has never been in question; this aspect was an open-and-shut case which

Banal Evil A villain fighting the hero is usually the way we envision evil in media such as television, music, and books. In real life however evil is not as clear but the definition we can best use is about evil being the inverse of good. For example if giving is good stealing is evil because it is the opposite of giving. Another example would be more complicated such as white collar crimes. These crimes are nonviolent and financially motivated in which the criminal is seemingly normal but is evil

different views on the idea of evil. Staub and Arendt both have very different ideas and concepts. Arendt’s concept, “the banality of evil” is a very controversial explanation, while Staub’s goes into more depth and his arguments on evil are more powerful. The causes of evil are accessible; not ultimately mysterious and we now can predict genocide. Both people share their explanations of National Socialist evil. According to Staub who wrote The Roots of Evil, “the essence of evil is the destruction of human

responsibilities for our actions. Whether or not there is intent, a person could be still culpable for a crime. Their actions, no matter how minor they may be, may still hold the individual accountable for the contribution to the crime. This concept of the “banality of evil” is the idea that we, as individuals, occupy and share an awkward space with others in which our actions are involved in the commission of a crime that we did not intend to comment. This involvement cannot go unpunished and it is at this point

The term “banality of evil,” does not refer to a theory or a doctrine, but fits “a phenomenon which stared one in the face at the trial” (Arendt), the inability to measure the difference between the gigantic scale on which the crimes (the evil) committed and the insignificance (the banality) of the persons who were most responsible. Seeing Eichmann “in the flesh” Arendt felt it impossible to ascribe the phenomenon she observed to “any particularity of wickedness, pathology, or ideological conviction

for the future, and confidence in her God. There is no deeper thinking to her viewpoint, it is purely based off of a blind hope. While philosopher and author of the book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt would agree with Frank that human nature is not evil, she would certainly criticize for her lack of reasoning to back up her beliefs. In fact, Arendt’s book revolves around careful explanation of her views about Adolph Eichmann, a man who was significantly involved

rational people regardless of specific situational context, such as a natural condition to man in evildoing. The face of evil portrayal the high-ranking SS official at Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem is not necessarily that of a radically wicked neurotic mastermind, but comes in the form of a banal and unimpressive distortion of normalcy. Arendt argues that the banality of evil is standardizing as thoughtlessness into the unthinkable action of human’s terrible deeds in a systematic and methodical way

Hannah Arendt presents in her novel, The Life of the Mind, a theory she refers to as the “two-in-one.” She builds her theory off of a Socratic proposition. Socrates stated that it would be better for a group of men to be out of tune with each other than for him to be out of tune with himself. Here, however, lies a paradox. How can one be out of tune with itself? Arendt states that “you always need at least two tones to produce a harmonious sound” (183). Yet when you appear to others, you are one

works focus was on power in politics, authorities, direct democracies, and totalitarianism. Emphasis has been given to her work published in the New Yorker on Eichmann trial due to the controversial phrase “Banality of Evil” that means a belief that a person’s behavior is not considered evil if that behavior has been normalized by the current society in which they reside. With the intention of shedding light on the person who was Hannah Arendt,