Is badness the result of a morally void choice? Hannah Arendt grew up in Hanover. She was a prolific author of books such as Eichmann’s Jerusalem: A report on the banality of evil. She fled Nazi Germany to France in 1933 and then to the United States by 1941. She does not defend the Nazis’ actions, but rather provokes thought about the way evil acts are performed. Arendt uses an unbiased viewpoint to support her belief that evil is a banal, ordinary cause, as evidenced by Adolf Eichmann’s thoughtless and cruel actions.
Although actions and orders have the potential to be evil, their thought processes are normal as if there was no need for thought. As long as there is free will, evil will be a part of our lives. Arendt created a theory based on Adolf Eichmann’s evil acts to describe thoughtlessness. Arendt argues that anyone can act evilly without considering the potential consequences. It shows that this person does not think about moral implications. Thoughtlessness does not refer to a particular mindset, but rather the way a person makes choices. Eichmann’s task was to relocate specific groups of people into concentration camps, and then order their murder. Arendt says that although he didn’t want to kill people, he followed orders in order to further his own career. The banality in evil comes from the distance between those who are in charge and those that suffer. Eichmann and other individuals in power pass down orders to subordinates without ever seeing the consequences, even though they indirectly caused this evil. Arendt uses the Milgram Shock Experiment from 1961, a full year after Adolf Eichman’s trial. The experiment was intended to test how long an American average would be willing to follow orders from an authority figure in a situation where they thought they could administer potentially fatal electric shocked. The Milgram Experiment concluded “Ordinary people will likely follow orders given by authority figures, even if they kill an innocent person.” “Obedience is instilled from birth” (McLeod). It is impossible to consider anyone who takes orders from the prefect as an accomplice of the crime. It is clear that in many situations, people will disregard moral guidelines, and still follow orders.
Arendt doesn’t believe Eichmann acted with indifference throughout his entire life. She says that he wasn’t necessarily an antisemite fanatic, but pursued a professional opportunity when he rose to the highest echelon in a radical regime. In his court case, he said that he wasn’t interested in homicide and slaughter; he simply wanted to perform his duties as efficiently as possible. After the dissolution of the Nazi Party, he did not target Jews. After his membership in the Schutzstaffel movement, Eichmann fled Europe, where he lived in a modest factory. He was eventually captured and put to death after his trial. Eichmann had been a Nazi and proposed the idea of sending Jews to Madagascar to avoid killing them. The text “When the Madagascar project became obsolete a year after, everyone was mentally, or better yet, logically prepared for the next steps: Since there was no place to ‘evacuate’ to, the only solution was to exterminate” (Arendt) explains this account. After this expulsion plan, he did not challenge his dignitaries. Arendt’s testimony about Eichmann and his Madagascar Plan contradicts other material that claims Eichmann to be a fanatical Antisemite. Eichmann was a sloppy worker when he was working with Nazis.
Evil can be a result of committing actions without thinking about the consequences or from selfish motives. Thought is an essential part of every person’s life, it can be difficult to define. Arendt is convinced that Eichmann had no sadistic motives in working with the Schutzstaffel. “From the standpoint of our legal systems and moral standards, this normality is much more terrifying than the sum of all atrocities” (Arendt). Nazis were the worst for exploiting the natural human desire to follow authority. The Nazi party’s high officials knew that giving orders to soldiers and other low-ranking personnel was the least ethical part of its agenda.
Ignorance is less closely associated with thoughtlessness than unconsciousness. Ignorance occurs when someone ignores their instincts and chooses to do something. The unconscious brain is responsible for the behavior of humans and can be compared to thoughtlessness. Arendt defines thoughtlessness as the conformity that is displayed by everyone, as shown by the Milgram Shock Experiment. The conscious brain creates thought, while the unconscious brain indicates the limit of morality at which people are willing to continue following orders. Arendt argues that the ability to think is what prevents people from doing evil things. However, this is impossible to do because evil is inherent in our nature.
Arendt calls thoughtlessness banal because she wants to show that all human behavior is banal or ordinary. A person’s daily behavior is largely dictated based on their reflexes or habits. The routine behaviors of humans can be funny. People avoid difficult decisions or interactions when moral dilemmas are present. This was demonstrated by the Nazi upper-echelon officials. Nazis use a hierarchy to keep the powerful from confronting the oppressed. It’s hilarious that those who bring evil to the world make the same decisions and behave the same as us.
The result of an overwhelming group or society is thoughtlessness. People in America are more likely to be conscious of the moral implications when they perform a routine task. It is our culture that dictates the morality of any situation. This makes it a deliberate act to commit an evil act. In the modern world, most people are conscious and considerate of their actions. Others are willing to ignore these implications for personal gain.
The nature and character of evil are often mundane, ordinary, and banal. Hannah Arendt analyzes an individual’s professional career who was convicted of war crimes like genocide, crime against humanity and Nazi affiliation. Milgram Shock Experiment results show that, despite his conviction, not all Nazis are necessarily guilty of being his accomplices. Arendt claims that, despite the evidence to the contrary, evil comes from a lack in thinking. Hannah Arendt, a Jew from Nazi Germany, should know better than anyone else the evil and inhumane actions of Nazis. Yet, she still uses her author’s pedestal to analyse the nature evil.
