Psychology and Banality of Evil - Essay Example

Banality of Evil whether you Agree or Disagree with Arendt’s Conclusion. Do you have a Problem with her View? Arendt came up with the phrase ‘Banality of evil’ after her master thesis that “ the principal evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and, therefore, participated with the view that their actions were normal” (Ardent, 24). Arendt’s perception on the crimes shows that she agrees with the fact that the abnormal heinous acts are committed, and people tend to accept that they are routine and are comfortably digested in the society involved. Every human being is susceptible to mistakes, and the normal human part of a person cannot evade making mistakes, as man is to err (Ardent, 24). Though mistakes are unavoidable, there exists some crimes which are unavoidable. Crimes against humanity can be avoided unless ones state of mind requires. Reicher and Haslam blame various factors to influence heinous acts like strong leadership. A strong leader can tremendously influence their followers to perform crude acts. Individual differences can also lead to the acts when one has issues with a fellow person and wants to derive satisfaction from punishing another. Eichmann killed individuals unthinkably not because of any reason, but just blindly following orders. Every person has the freedom of choosing what to do; hence, he/she does not have to follow orders as a sycophant blindly; hence that is no reason at all for Eichmann having to commit the crimes. Arendt claims that Eichmann was not capable of thinking that the suffering he was making his victims undergo was real and that it was not hatred (Ardent, 24). I completely disagree with this since each normal man has ability to discern between wrong and right. Banality of evil does not explain anything to do with evils committed. The people who committed the holocaust were mere sadists who derived joy from seeing others suffer and not that whatever they were doing was normal (Lozowick, 184). Does Banality of Evil Explain Crimes against Humanity? Are you Drawn towards the Point of View? Banality of evil does not explain the acts of Eichmann. For one thing, Eichmann was a high rank official in the government showing that he was obviously bright. The notion that he did not know what he was doing is simply baseless, and we cannot blame such crimes on the banality of evil. Another fact is that most people who plan for evil do it for a reason, mostly revenge. The holocaust was started with the aim of ending all Jews, the Rwanda genocide was spearheaded with the motive of perishing all Tutsis. From this, it is clear that all capital crimes are planned and not done unknowingly, hence the notion of banality of evil is simply baseless, and cannot be used to cover up the crimes (Lozowick, 202). Arendt claims that Eichmann’s answers in the court room shows that he did not know whatever he had been doing. I take the view that he was playing dumb to try and win through the case and was not acting remorseful since he had no remorse. He had been a true and faithful servant of Hitler and had obviously pledged loyalty and standing in a court room was not going to change that. The fact that other former Nazi criminals who had been brought in the court room had been remorseful does not mean Eichmann had to be remorseful too, he was simply a proud Nazi who had no drop of humanity left in him. In fact, the reaction of Eichmann in the court room should be taken as a more criminal act as it displays how he took the case lightly and did not think he was wrong in any way. Another thing is that one cannot compare the crimes like the Holocaust to every day crimes like cheating. I prefer that the normal crimes be blamed on banality of evil but not crimes against humanity. The involved party must just face dire consequences for their actions (Lozowick, 202). In What ways Might Evil be Banal Evil is a superficial phenomenon that just happens not because of any root happening, while thinking has roots. One thinks using the roots of the idea before just acting, hence evil can be banal in this way. Eichmann had no root for his actions; hence he could not think; hence the genesis of the evils he committed. Evil is also banal basing on the fact that, at times, it happens without one realizing it. Evil does not emanate from any special force, it comes from assuming certain responsibilities and rules of life. It does not just happen that one becomes evil, but the fact that one breaks certain laws proves how banal evil is. Evil is also banal basing on the fact that it majorly stands less and on the basis of sadism. Evil is always aimed at making people suffer. Evil is not directed by any ideology, hence the fact that it is banal. Everyone has a devil side, hence is capable of committing a heinous act. What makes the difference is choice, hence this shows that evil is banal in the sense that not just specific people are bound to commit evil but everyone making choices is what matters. Evil occurs when individuals gets themselves in positions that make them lose humanity; hence its being banal (Kristeva, 43). Does Banality of evil explain how Crimes against Humanity are Perpetrated? Taking a case study of Eichmann, the man did not seem to know the seriousness of whatever he was doing since to him it, seemed normal. This explains the banality of evil when people do not take at heart the effects of a crime before doing it. Perpetrators of evil never find anything strange in the intensity of suffering they cause their victims. They take it to be a normal occurrence; hence, explaining just how banal evil is in the case of perpetrating the crimes against humanity. “Whole Trial was a long Course in the World and Thought Defying Banality of Evil”. What Do you Think she Meant by this? Arendt meant that it was wrong to try Eichmann since all her evidence point to the fact that he did not know the intensity of what he was doing (Kristeva, 43). She claims that the stupid phrases and clichés Eichmann used in the court room during trial were a clear evidence of her claims, and that it is the same way a child can trigger an explosion by switching the knob of a nuclear weapon without knowing. She claims that though the damage is huge the crime was not intended which I personally find pretty ridiculous. Work Cited Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin, 2006. Print. Kristeva, Julia. Hannah Arendt. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2001. Print. Lozowick, Yaacov. Hitlers Bureaucrats: The Nazi Security Police and the Banality of Evil. Continuum IntlPub Group, 2005. Print. Read More