I always took this phrase "the banality of evil" to say that it is in our everyday "banal" activities that evil creeps in. It's an implication of thoughtless daily activity, a manner of being where we don't think critically of our habits or assess their impact on others. For example, we banally eat a steak without thinking whether the cow was treated humanely or what it tortured. It's just becomes an everyday, non-thinking activity to consume the meat.
I think this video understates additional motivations Eichman may have had e.g. promotion. He declared during the trial that he followed the orders he was given in order to be promoted/favoured. This therefore presents a seperate dynamic on what will 'ordinary' people do in order to be rewarded/get ahead. He actually believed that by sending more people to their deaths he would be regarded as competent. by making sure the trains to the death camps got there on time he would be praised- that's more than just simply evil there is something else in that.
I don't think this scholar understood Arendt's argument. Or, he may be using her arguments to prove his own point (perhaps a political agenda). I don't believe that Arendt meant to say that evil is banal or that Eichmann did not do his own efforts to collaborate with others in carrying-out the aims of the Nazis. I think what she meant was that Eichmann had uncritically accepted the idea that the Jews where the arch enemy. As a result of accepting this idea, that brought him in a chain of other actions which only propelled other acts committed against the Jews. Eichmann's thoughtlessness or lack of reflection of the moral implications of what he was doing is what brought him to commit the acts that he did. In the concept of the banality of evil, Arendt is warning us that, unlike the Western Heritage which portrays evil characters like Satan committing evil deeds on a large-scale, evil can come from ordinary individuals who carry-out their own self-reflection in an uncritical way. Multi individuals who accept an ideology uncritically, you have the perfect recipe for hate crimes done towards a certain group of people. Hence, Lozowick seems to prove that Eichmann's activities consist of varies steps and procedures; however, he does not prove that Eichmann was critically engaged in what he was doing. If Eichmann had accepted his role is the Nazi party, he simply followed orders under the belief that his party is right.
You said that Eichmann knew that he would come under moral censure if reports on the lagers became well known. And you also said that Eichmann never understood what he was doing as evil. Yes, he understood. But to think is not to act. He had a good life and career. And he didn´t think he would be caught one day. That´s why he didn´t do nothing about it. Not because he couldn´t think.
I know that Vashem would like to or even on some level NEEDS to believe that Arendt was wrong just to keep his sanity. It is very easy for those of us who are members of the majority, the ruling class as it were, to understand how just average, mediocre, slightly stupid people can carry out truly evil acts just because they are told to and not because they were monsters. Members of a minority, people who have been persecuted, would need to rationalize it because the alternative is just too horrible to grasp. When you realize that a huge amount of 'Outrageously stupid' people as Arendt called Eichmann, exist in every society and every one of them is prone to the banal evil that would allow them to take part in atrocities without ever questioning the status quo, it is truly frightening. Smart people would never go along with it, people capable of thinking for themselves would not say, 'That is just the way it is so we should accept it." the way the plebeian masses just accept the premise that drowning in industrial pollution is just the price you pay for having a job. THAT is the banality of evil! That evil exists in an abundance in America today, the truly evil oligarchs have their plebes voting for their own demise or ruination and the demise or ruination of their neighbors with many of the same cliches' that Eichmann fell for and they are honestly and totally unaware that they ARE the evil that exists in the world.
Of course, Nazi bureaucrats knew what was happening to the Jews. They also knew they would come under moral censure if reports on the lagers became well known. That's not what Arendt means by the banality of evil or the fact that Eichmann didn't know what he was doing. What she means is that Eichmann never understood what he was doing as evil because he couldn't think. He was not monster. How could Arendt be unaware of your points since she was the one who described them in such detail?
THANK YOU, Your views are very enlightening!!!!! I agree with you. Evil does not just creeps in. There were anti semitic laws in Germany before Hitler. Anyway, most importantly, a collective german guilt was created
thanks for the video but damn dude that audio is atrocious.
I always took this phrase "the banality of evil" to say that it is in our everyday "banal" activities that evil creeps in. It's an implication of thoughtless daily activity, a manner of being where we don't think critically of our habits or assess their impact on others. For example, we banally eat a steak without thinking whether the cow was treated humanely or what it tortured. It's just becomes an everyday, non-thinking activity to consume the meat.
I think this video understates additional motivations Eichman may have had e.g. promotion. He declared during the trial that he followed the orders he was given in order to be promoted/favoured. This therefore presents a seperate dynamic on what will 'ordinary' people do in order to be rewarded/get ahead. He actually believed that by sending more people to their deaths he would be regarded as competent. by making sure the trains to the death camps got there on time he would be praised- that's more than just simply evil there is something else in that.
bad sound quality/ almost hurts to hear
I don't think this scholar understood Arendt's argument. Or, he may be using her arguments to prove his own point (perhaps a political agenda). I don't believe that Arendt meant to say that evil is banal or that Eichmann did not do his own efforts to collaborate with others in carrying-out the aims of the Nazis. I think what she meant was that Eichmann had uncritically accepted the idea that the Jews where the arch enemy. As a result of accepting this idea, that brought him in a chain of other actions which only propelled other acts committed against the Jews. Eichmann's thoughtlessness or lack of reflection of the moral implications of what he was doing is what brought him to commit the acts that he did.
In the concept of the banality of evil, Arendt is warning us that, unlike the Western Heritage which portrays evil characters like Satan committing evil deeds on a large-scale, evil can come from ordinary individuals who carry-out their own self-reflection in an uncritical way. Multi individuals who accept an ideology uncritically, you have the perfect recipe for hate crimes done towards a certain group of people.
Hence, Lozowick seems to prove that Eichmann's activities consist of varies steps and procedures; however, he does not prove that Eichmann was critically engaged in what he was doing. If Eichmann had accepted his role is the Nazi party, he simply followed orders under the belief that his party is right.
I think Hannah Arendt's arguments are better.
He didn't understand what Hannah Arendt said.
You said that Eichmann knew that he would come under moral censure if reports on the lagers became well known. And you also said that Eichmann never understood what he was doing as evil. Yes, he understood. But to think is not to act. He had a good life and career. And he didn´t think he would be caught one day. That´s why he didn´t do nothing about it. Not because he couldn´t think.
I know that Vashem would like to or even on some level NEEDS to believe that Arendt was wrong just to keep his sanity. It is very easy for those of us who are members of the majority, the ruling class as it were, to understand how just average, mediocre, slightly stupid people can carry out truly evil acts just because they are told to and not because they were monsters.
Members of a minority, people who have been persecuted, would need to rationalize it because the alternative is just too horrible to grasp.
When you realize that a huge amount of 'Outrageously stupid' people as Arendt called Eichmann, exist in every society and every one of them is prone to the banal evil that would allow them to take part in atrocities without ever questioning the status quo, it is truly frightening.
Smart people would never go along with it, people capable of thinking for themselves would not say, 'That is just the way it is so we should accept it." the way the plebeian masses just accept the premise that drowning in industrial pollution is just the price you pay for having a job. THAT is the banality of evil!
That evil exists in an abundance in America today, the truly evil oligarchs have their plebes voting for their own demise or ruination and the demise or ruination of their neighbors with many of the same cliches' that Eichmann fell for and they are honestly and totally unaware that they ARE the evil that exists in the world.
Of course, Nazi bureaucrats knew what was happening to the Jews. They also knew they would come under moral censure if reports on the lagers became well known. That's not what Arendt means by the banality of evil or the fact that Eichmann didn't know what he was doing. What she means is that Eichmann never understood what he was doing as evil because he couldn't think. He was not monster. How could Arendt be unaware of your points since she was the one who described them in such detail?
Pretty... Comforting, to hear this. It's great to think that there is a line between the monsters and the rest of us.
This guy didn't understand Arendt
comment say it all.
THANK YOU, Your views are very enlightening!!!!! I agree with you. Evil does not just creeps in. There were anti semitic laws in Germany before Hitler. Anyway, most importantly, a collective german guilt was created