In fact, the “radical evil” is a thought that Arendt borrows from Kant. According to UCSD professor Henry E. Allison’s “Idealism and Freedom”, Kant is the first person who uses this concept in his work “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”. Kant believes that human’s inclination will seduce them to do evil. When people do not abide by the moral law, but follow their own preferences to behave, it is human’s “radical evil”. The “evil” is called “radical” which does not indicate a specific or extremely awful “evil”, but it refers to any possible source or basis from the “evil”. Kant concludes the cause of the moral conduct as a universal (or general) morality from rational practice. In “Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason”, Kant indicates that the “evil” is primarily chosen from “subjective” basis which is opposite to the moral conduct. The characteristic of it is a designed self-deception which means subjective …show more content…
Eichmann is the important executor of the Nazi massacre of the Jews. However, this concept is also not originally raised by Arendt, it comes from her husband Heinrich Blücher as an ironic statement for evil (Ulrich, paragraph 11). However, it idea becomes the key words for her subheading for her work “Eichmann in Jerusalem A Report on the Banality of Evil” which published in 1965. In this book, Arendt indicates that when we are facing this specific criminal, we are not facing the collective crime from totalitarianism any more, but an individual crime of an official from the totalitarian government. Therefore, the “radical evil” and “the banality of evil” are not two contradictory ideas logically. They are two different conclusions that are made by Arendt with two different angles to consider what is “evil”. The “radical evil” considers more about the society and “the banality of evil” concerns more about the
" Metaphors of Evil: Contemporary German Literature and the Shadow of Nazism. Hamida Bosmajian. University of Iowa Press, 1979. 27-54.
Goldhagen's book however, has the merit of opening up a new perspective on ways of viewing the Holocaust, and it is the first to raise crucial questions about the extent to which eliminationist anti-Semitism was present among the German population as a whole. Using extensive testimonies from the perpetrators themselves, it offers a chilling insight into the mental and cognitive structures of hundreds of Germans directly involved in the killing operations. Anti-Semitism plays a primary factor in the argument from Goldhagen, as it is within his belief that anti-Semitism "more or less governed the ideational life of civil society" in pre-Nazi Germany . Goldhagen stated that a
Hannah Arendt discovered a concept known as “The banality of Evil” during the time of the Holocaust, she wanted to understand the nature of evil and explain how it can be different from the concept of radical evil. Her theory arose from the actions led by a man whose job was to organize the transportation of Jews to concentration camps in various cities. Adolf Eichman was a typical Bureaucrat. Arendt described him as an average joe whose sole purpose was to be successful and follow the orders lead by his superior, Hitler. The orders led by Hitler are portrayed as motives led by absolute evil or “radical evil”. Arendt noted in her philosophy paper that there is a significant difference of character in Hitler and Eichman such that Hitler was
Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York, N.Y: Penguin Books, 2006. Internet resource.
Murders inflicted upon the Jewish population during the Holocaust are often considered the largest mass murders of innocent people, that some have yet to accept as true. The mentality of the Jewish prisoners as well as the officers during the early 1940’s transformed from an ordinary way of thinking to an abnormal twisted headache. In the books Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi and Ordinary men by Christopher R. Browning we will examine the alterations that the Jewish prisoners as well as the police officers behaviors and qualities changed.
In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil is a book about the Eichmann trials, written in Hannah Arendt's perspective. Hannah Arendt was a German-American political theorist, who was often labeled as a philosopher. During the trials she offered herself as a reporter for The New Yorker magazine. Arendt was a Jew, and an early refugee from Germany, making her uniquely qualified to cover the trial, but conversely created controversy among the Jewish community. Arendt received static from the public because she was a Jew defending the morals of a Nazi. Throughout the trial, Arendt composed her impressions of Eichmann and articulated her opinion of the defendant. Throughout the Report on the Banality of Evil, Arendt explores the allegations from a legal and moral perspective, claiming that Eichmann is not a monster or the radical evil, but rather, the "banal evil." Although Eichmann's actions were legally wrong, Arendt saw a moral indifference. She believed that the Eichmann's case posed a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant
The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many ways challenged earlier works like Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” which arguably gives a more complex explanation for the motives of the perpetrators placing the emphasis on circumstance and pressure to conform. These differing opinions on why the perpetrators did what they did during the Holocaust have led to them being presented in very different ways by each historian. To contrast this I have chosen to focus on the portrayal of one event both books focus on in detail; the mass shooting of around 1,500 Jews that took place in Jozefow, Poland on July 13th 1942 (Browning:2001:225). This example clearly highlights the way each historian presents the perpetrators in different ways through; the use of language, imagery, stylistic devices and quotations, as a way of backing up their own argument. To do this I will focus on how various aspects of the massacre are portrayed and the way in which this affects the presentation of the per...
In the book Eichmann Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, we are shown a man that is seemingly normal and a common type of man. As the the trial goes on, we begin to see deep inside the mind of this banal, monstrous man. Evil does not always have a “look”, sometimes evil is found in the most ordinary of men with a cliche lifestyle and a stamp of approval from half-a-dozen psychiatrists.
Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.
First, I will look at Arendt’s criticism of violence. She believes that violence is not an idle concept. It needs to be justified by ethics and philosophy and often cannot be referred to without regard to
Immanuel Kant is a popular modern day philosopher. He was a modest and humble man of his time. He never left his hometown, never married and never strayed from his schedule. Kant may come off as boring, while he was an introvert but he had a great amount to offer. His thoughts and concepts from the 1700s are still observed today. His most recognized work is from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Here Kant expresses his idea of ‘The Good Will’ and the ‘Categorical Imperative’.
By recognizing evil as banal, society is forced to face the reality that monstrous acts are not committed by those carrying an abnormal trait. It is the normality and mediocrity which terrified Arendt, along with others who study the Eichmann trial. It is the way in which evil became so average that makes Eichmann as dangerous as he was considered, not just the thoughtless acts he committed. By changing views on evil, however, society will be able to makes steps toward understand how events such as genocide can occur within the larger society.
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. After witnessing the atrocities of both World Wars and the worldwide tension during the Cold War, no concepts or theoretical understandings of the crimes and events that occurred were developed, inciting Arendt to comment on political violence. She considers these events to be a failure of politics and tradition. However, On Revolution seeks to provoke revolutionary thought, ideally with society reverting to the opulence of public life and politics as seen in Ancient Greece. Modern warfare echoes that of Roman antiquity, as we begin to see justifications of these conflicts, with rationalisation of violence accepted by society, seeing the amalgamation of violence and politics, as Marx highlights. Therefore, this structural violence must overcome with an overhaul of the political realm, with emphasis on speech, conversation and debate, creating radical upheaval and reform. Arendt emphasises this separation of politics and violence with great conviction, as politics in the modern world has greatly failed humanity as evidenced through the atrocities of the 20th century. This goes against the theories of Marx, who argues that the ruling class’ violence struct...