The Banality Of Evil Through Realism

The Fundamental Premises Of Realism And The Peace Through...
Name: Kelsey O'Connor Instructor: Barbara Wien
Mid–TERM EXAM Peace, Global Security and Conflict Resolution SIS–210, Fall 2016
VERY short answers please. Some only require a few words. Others are more complicated.
1. What are the fundamental premises of Realism and the peace through strength theory?
The fundamental premises of realism consist of the five basic tenants of state craft and core assumptions of realism which comes from Morgenthau's
discussion of realism. Those principles are to deflect accountability, project modesty, don't compromise, cultivate the military, and to maintain an
external enemy.
2. What are the criteria for using military force under Just War Doctrine?
While there are no main criteria, there are a few that the Just War Doctrine follows. The criteria for using military force under Just War Doctrine
follows three sections with sub–categories following them. Those three categories are jus ad bellum (what justifies going to war), jus in bello (how
combatants must act), and jus post bellum (how war must be terminated). Jus ad bellum encompasses just cause, legitimate authority, formal
declaration, among other reasons that justify going to war. Jus in bello refers to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), proportionality, and no
atrocious weapons. Jus post bellum is about public declaration and authority and the ways in which wars should end.
3. What is a "Paradigm Shift"?
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Scandal Of The Icarnation Analysis
evil is inevitable and one of her memorable quotes from her book The Banality of Evil is this, "The sad truth is that most evil is done by people
who never make up their minds to be good or evil." Evil being a part of the cosmos is something we should all accept as part of life, Niche and Arendt
understood this and the Milgram Experiment shows evil as all too human. This does not mean that Humans by nature are evil, it shows that without evil
human development would not exist deeming it to be necessary.
Evil can be seen as maturation, the importance of maturity is to gain wisdom and again it helps human development as a whole. Irenaeus of Lyon, in
The Scandal of the Incarnation speaks against the heresies saying, "Sight would not be so desirable

Thoughtlessness And Stupidness
Eichmann followed the will of the Fuhrer rather than his own and this also indicates that he himself had no real motives for his acts; his fault was in
the fact that he refused to think about what he was doing, or refused to recognise the truth of what he was in fact doing.
"It was sheer thoughtlessness – something by no means identical with stupidity – that predisposed him to become one of the greatest criminals of that
period."
The distinction between thoughtlessness and stupidity is important in the concept of banality of evil. Thoughtlessness is a state of ignoring one's own
sense of right and wrong, a state of being inconsiderate towards others. Thoughtlessness indicates a lack of thought, but not an inability to think.
Stupidity indicates a lack of mental abilities, an inability to process cognitively. Thoughtlessness is so dangerous precisely because it is a state of
ignoring rather than an ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the fact that evil is banal and perpetrated by normal people does not imply that its consequences are somehow less horrific, or that the
people who perpetrate these acts are somehow less guilty. Arendt suggested that Eichmann should be punished for his acts in the same way that he
would be if he was somehow proven to be a monster by the prosecution . The punishment for one's immoral actions, even when perpetrated out of
thoughtlessness should be just as severe as the punishment for people whose actions were motivated with hate and prejudice. When acts of banal evil
are punished in the same way as the acts motivated with hate, perhaps they can be prevented. Furthermore, if thoughtlessness and reckless obedience
were punishable in the same way as crimes motivated by a personal passion, perhaps they could become

Torture : Torture By Jean Amery
Margo Dyer GRMN–JWST: 2502010 Professor Weber Recitation Fri. 11 AM
– Emily Torture According to Amery Torture, (n.), the action or practice
of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain. After
reading "Torture" by Holocaust survivor, Jean Amery, it is clear that the above definition of torture does not provide an honest connotative definition for
the act and effects of torture. Amery speaks about torture from his own personal experiences in both Auschwitz and Buchenwald, providing witness to
the dehumanization of Jews. In "Torture", Jean Amery truthfully depicts torture as an unimaginable terror, in which one loses sense of self, human
dignity, and trust in the world, while gaining a haunted future. Throughout the Holocaust torture was used by many Nazis in order to get the Jewish
prisoners to do something or give information. Torture has always been an element of Fascism, and Amery argues that "...torture was not an accidental
quality of this Third Reich, but its essence". He continues to even say that if torture were removed from Fascism, there would be nothing left. In
Hitler's Germany, Nazis tortured for information, "but in addition they tortured with good conscience of depravity", meaning they were aware of the
moral corruption it was causing, all in all "they tortured because they were torturers". Nazis purposefully placed torture in their ways, but became

Stanley Milgram Experiment
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of obedience is when a person view himself as an instrument for carrying out another person's command, and therefore, no longer views
himself responsible for his actions. Excessive obedience can lead to a harmful situation that can result to the Nazi's atrocities. Stanley Milgram wrote
an article "Obedience to Authority" with a reference to Nazi Germany and how transferring the responsibility played a role during holocaust. Milgram
experiment shows us that ordinary people will most likely to conform to an authority figure, to the extent of hurting others. Adolf Eichmann is an
example of authority figure who followed orders that cause millions of people to lose their lives. He was one of Adolf Hitler's right hand that ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Many are capable of doing things as long as they know that they are not going to be accountable for their actions. They assume that because an
authority gives them an order to do something, they think it is the right thing to do. This proves that influence can make people do things they have
not done before. The mere fact that millions of people died during the holocaust is an example of how far a person could go in the name of obedience.
During his experiment, 65% of the students ended up delivering 450 volts, which was the max shock. It seems disturbing that many people are willing
to do evil things because they think that they are free from the responsibility. According to Milgram, "The most far–reaching consequence is that the
person feels responsible to the authority directing him, but feels no responsibility for the content of the actions that the authority prescribes." This may
be how the SS soldiers felt while doing their wrong–doings to the Jews. They must have thought that they did not have the power or voice to speak out
when it is the Government that is telling them to do such actions. Milgram's experiment pointed out that people that are only obeying commands feel
less responsible for their actions. This is where banality of evil comes take

Essay on Eichmann in Jerusalem
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil In her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt uses the life and trial of Adolf Eichmann
to explore man's responsibility for evils committed under orders or as a result of the law. Due to the fact that she believed that Eichmann was neither
anti–Semitic, nor a psychopath, Arendt was widely criticized for treating Eichmann too sympathetically. Still, her work on the Eichmann trial is
among the most respected works on the issue to date. Eichmann built a defense during his trial by arguing that he was not responsible for his actions
because he was acting under orders and in accordance with the law of his land. Since his orders came from Adolf Hitler himself, Eichmann... Show
Hannah Arendt ends her book with the phrase "The Banality of Evil." This phrase encapsulates her belief that the great evils of mankind have not been
committed by sociopaths or the criminally insane, but rather by ordinary people who have accepted the decisions of corrupt authorities without
question. Current examples of this behavior can be found internationally, specifically when looking at the "ethnic cleansing" policies of some African
nations, but also within the United States at the corporate level. Employees of Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom and other disgraced corporations
have claimed innocence due to the fact that they only acted as they were instructed by superiors. The most alarming thing about Arendt's book is that
she is able to make a compelling case that the greatest evils of mankind are committed by ordinary people. Her work forces one to look at the world
and realize that the Holocaust was not an isolated incident committed by blood thirsty sociopaths. One must realize that the decision making processes
that created an environment accepting of the "Final Solution" is still alive an well today as it has been throughout history. The weight of personal
moral choice

Arendt Eichmann and Anti-Semitism
Arendt, Eichmann and Anti–Semitism Introduction: The Holocaust invokes a great many emotions based on the scale of the atrocities committed and
the degree of hatred that both allowed them to occur and that remained embedded in world culture thereafter. This is why the trial of Adolph Eichmann,
which laid out the extent of crimes committed by the Nazis and which levied them against the alleged architect of the Final Solution, would promote so
much debate. In spite of the obviation that the Jewish people had a right to seek justice for the roughly six million that perished in European
concentration camps, the use of Eichmann as an avatar and the nature of the trials themselves would invoke criticism. The most noted of this criticism
is that offered by Hannah Arendt's 1963 examination, Eichmann in Jerusalem: The Banality of Evil. Discussion: The text is noted for its sharp
criticism of the tactics used to embody the whole of the Nazi party's crimes in the form of one seemingly meek bureaucrat. However, the text is also the
subject of considerable criticism itself for a tone that seems both to minimize the Jewish suffering in the Holocaust and to purposively gloss over the
truly determinant role played by Eichmann in the implementation of the Final Solution. Indeed, though Arendt is highly critical of the tribunal, she
does recognize in quoting the prosecution in the trial that Eichmann had not only escaped judgment by evading the Nuremberg Trials implemented by
Allied

The Traditional and Modern Theories of Theodicy: An Analysis
The role of art, when delving into human suffering and matters of good and evil, ought to be that of a delivering agent, designed to extract a form of
universal truth from the very consciousness of the observer, and act as mirror for humanity's dual reality. The present paper aims to analyze the
traditional and modern theories of theodicy in relation to literature, insofar as literary works such as Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita or Fyodor
Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov owe their widely acknowledged value to controversial yet marvelously insightful glimpses into mankind's
complex interpretations of evil.
The first traditional theory of theodicy belongs to Augustine of Hippo. In his Confessions, the Christian theologian supported the view that people are
innately good, but that evil exists as absence of good, a privation entirely new and unrelated to God's own exclusively good nature. Thus, God created
people, but God did not create evil and its pervasive consequence, suffering. In fact, it is argued that evil could not exist on an independent basis.
Furthermore, this theodicy contends that humanity's evil nature has its inception simply in partial deprivation of the original goodness, a punishment
following the disobedience which marked the biblical original sin: "it was made clear to me that thou madest all things good . . . whatsoever is, is
good. Evil, then, the origin of which I had been seeking, has no substance at all; for if it were a substance, it would be good"

The Milgram Experiment
The banality of evil expression was coined by Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), German political theory, in her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, whose
subtitle is a report on the banality of evil. In 1961, in Israel, Adolf Eichmann 's trial for genocide against the Jewish people during World War begins.
The trial was involved in a controversy and many disputes. Almost all the world's newspapers sent reporters to cover the sessions, which were made
publicly by the Israeli government. In addition to crimes against the Jewish people, Eichmann was charged with crimes against humanity and belonging
to a group organized criminal purposes. Eichmann was convicted of these crimes and hanged in 1962, near Tel Aviv. One of the correspondents present
at the trial,... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If today there were new concentration camps, dominated by the figure of a tyrant or other forms of authoritarianism, there would be more than 75 % of
citizens, at least only in the US, they would be willing to join the staff thereof and punish other human beings. The Milgram experiment is strong
evidence in supporting Arendt's point, which is that someone like Eichmann was just following orders and had nothing to do with Anti–Semitism.
These people who went through the experiment without knowing the ethnical background of whoever was in the other room so it them continuing
with the shocks had nothing to do with ethnicity. Most of these people went along through the experiment the whole way knowing they were harming
the life of someone else but luckily in reality they were not. Eichmann was still not the perfect man because following orders or not it goes against
morals values but there is a sense of where he is coming from and where Arendt's argument is coming from. Eichmann and Arendt claim it was about
obedience over Anti–Semitism and the law over

Hannah Arendt Motivation
Hannah Arendt has been widely recognized as both one of the most major thinkers and top political philosophers of the 20th century. Arendt was born
on October 14, 1906 in Hanover, Germany as the only child of a middle–class Jewish–German family. She grew up in KГ¶nigsberg, In 1913, her father
passed away and her mother persuaded her into strong academic studies, and it is quite evident she did well in motivating her as Arendt's academic
background is quite large. In 1933, Arendt was arrested for having gathered information regarding the Nazi army and anti–semitism. Afterward, Hannah
Arendt, being a Jew in a city under nazi regime,was forced to flee the country and began a new life in Paris, France. She began working with Youth
Aliyah, which was an organization that primarily helped rescue Jewish children from most of eastern Europe. In 1940, she married a philosophy
professor named Heinrich BlГјcher and and soon became interned at Camp Grus, and escaped before the Germans arrived, once again on foot as a
fugitive with her husband. Due to the German invasion of France the couple alongside Arendt's mother fled France and flew over to Portugal using
illegally issued visas. Religion played a very large role in Hannah Arendt's life, but in a completely inevitable manner. The fact that Arendt was
Jewish and grew up in a city under full nazi regime control. Hannah Arendt incorporated her idea and views of religion very delicately in her writing
which is expected of from a good

The Banality Of Evil By Arendt Staub And Hannah Arendt
Over the years following the Holocaust, people like Ervin Staub and Hannah Arendt have shared their 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 beings because of who they are (pg25)." One of Staub's major claims discusses difficult life conditions, like economic problems
and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
With intense difficult life conditions, they give rise to powerful motives and lead to ways of fulfilling them, in which that group can go against a
subgroup. They go against other weaker groups, diminish that group and then join new strong groups, like Nazis under Hitler and his ideology.
"People will do anything to satisfy their own interests (pg26)." People will do whatever it takes, even if it involves killing others. Eventually this will
lead the society to change and have a continuum of destruction that will end in genocide. In the end it is shown that difficult life conditions and certain
cultural characteristics allows a society to become vulnerable, which makes it easy to be taken over. The societal–political organization can have an
authoritarian/totalitarian system that involves mistreatment. Once again there is that concept that people follow and listen to their new leader in hope
for things, like life to get only better and they adopt a new ideology in hope for a beneficial change. "Nonetheless, the new leaders and their
followers are rooted in the culture, frequently a homogeneous one with a limited set of dominant values (pg33)." There is a great deal of obedience to
authority with respect. Also, they join a group to be or feel connected to others, like themselves. That plays a major role with the in–group and
out–group, in which the in–group is powerful and the out–group is inferior as well as being scapegoated. The out–group is being blamed,

Hannah Arendt on the Banality of Evil
Hannah Arendt is a German Jewish philosopher, born in 1906 and died in 1975. She studied philosophy with Martin Heidegger as Professor. Her
works deal with the nature of power and political subjects such as democracy, authority, and totalitarianism. She flew away to France in 1933, when
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in Germany. She flew away from Europe to the United States after escaping from the concentration camp of Gurs. She
became a Professor in New York city, in which she became an active member of the German Jewish community. In 1963, she was sent to Jerusalem to
report on Eichmann's trial by The New Yorker. Hannah Arendt's thoughts on Eichmann's trial were expected to be harsh, considering the philosopher's
roots. However, her... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This complete absence of thinking is what attracted the philosopher's interest and that is how she started to question the problem of the eventual inner
connection between the ability or inability to 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 individuals, but from the
"nobodies", from those who do not have the ability to think, and thus cannot tell what is wrong and what is right. As she was influenced by the
sociologist Max Weber, who wrote concerning bureaucracies that "It is horrible to think that the world could one day be filled with nothing but those
little cogs, little men clinging to their jobs and striving towards bigger ones", she elaborates on the danger of bureaucracy and its possible
responsibility when it comes to evil. Bureaucracies assign very specific tasks to each individual and these specific tasks cannot be seen as right or
wrong by the ones accomplishing them, it is when they are all together that they can be examined this way. Eichmann was simply obeying the rules,

Virtue In The Meno
In the Meno, Socrates finds the meaning of the word virtue in terms of human wisdom. This definition pursues a further question which is "what makes
the quest for wisdom possible?" (Gallagher, Commentary on the Meno). In the beginning of the dialogue, Meno asks Socrates if virtue can be taught.
Socrates says that doesn't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of virtue. This is an example of human wisdom, knowing that you don't
know something.
Hannah Arendt is a very famous philosopher. She wrote a paper on Adolf Eichmann who was a logistics specializer during the Holocaust. In short
terms, he was in charge of the train schedule and had to make sure that it was picking up people in the right places at the right times. In 1963, Eichmann

Imagining Argentina Imagery
The novel, Imagining Argentina, makes use of several rhetorical devices in order to express the themes it presents. The image of the Holocaust, for
example, is repeated several times throughout the novel in order to express the themes, such as during the experiences of the main character, Carlos
Rueda, and the thoughts of the narrator, Martin Benn. It is through the repetition of the image of the Holocaust that the author, Lawrence Thornton,
conveys the predominant theme of Imagining Argentina that, without hope, life is meaningless.
Thornton heavily emphasizes the image of the Holocaust during Carlos' stay at Amos and Sara's refuge. Amos shares his and Sara's experiences in
Auschwitz with Carlos through his "...picture of people with no ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
An example of this is the depiction of the trials of the generals and those involved in the execution of the Dirty War during which Martin recalls
"Hannah Arendt's pronouncement...the perfect horror of her response, 'the banality of evil'..." (212) These words, "the banality of evil," express
Arendt's thesis that evils in history, particularly those of the Holocaust, were not solely caused by those who directly had a hand in them but also by
those who stood by and allowed them to happen; those

The Diary Of Anne Frank
Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt are two prominent female names that arise when one thinks of the Holocaust. Each of these Jewish woman had a very
unique experience during this grim time, one a bright–eyed, young girl who was forced to go into hiding, the other a philosopher that managed to
escape. However each pondered the workings of the brutality going on around her, and put it into words. Frank and Arendt each discuss their views on
human nature in the face of the Holocaust in their works. In this paper, I intend to discuss each woman's view, and then discuss how such a similar
viewpoint can be supported in two very different ways.
The Diary of Anne Frank is a personal work written by the young Anne Frank herself. The book is not a work of... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Yet I keep them, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart (278)."
Frank's reasoning for her point of view does not come with any sort of logical rationalization or in–depth analysis. Her explanation is as follows, "I
simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death.... I can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if I look up
into the heavens, I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquility will return again. In the meantime, I
must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when I shall be able to carry them out (279)." Frank's beliefs simply stem from her
wholehearted faith in the goodness of humanity, hopefulness 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 theBanality 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 in the deportation process of the Jewish people to the
concentration camps during the Holocaust. After attending his trial in

Persuasive Essay On Disobedience
Most of our lives are spent pleasing people, whether they are our parents when we are young, our teachers when we go to school, our friends and
peers in everyday life, or our bosses when we go to work. There also comes a time in our lives when being disobedient is met with consequences.
Some disagree that" obedience is a virtue... [,and] disobedience is a vice," and that disobedience is not only obligatory, but the only way to be to
free. This isn't saying that disobedience is acceptable, but there needs to be an agreement for both sides to achieve freedom, both mentally and
physically, at its fullest potential. Erich Fromm states, "Human history began with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be
terminated by an act of obedience." The movie "A Few Good Men" demonstrates Fromm's idea that obedience can cause destruction when the marines
obey their superiors orders without hesitation to harm one of their fellow soldiers.
The director Rob Reiner of A Few Good Men explained a story about how actions of obedience can destroy "humanistic conscience" within
individuals when driven by a corrupt authority. Two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey give
their views as to what happened: the receive an order from the platoon commander Lieutenant Kendrick to give Santiago a code red. Dawson and
Downey enter Santiago's barracks and put a rag in his mouth and put duct tape around his head. They then pulled the tape off, and there was blood
all down Santiago's face. Dawson quickly called an ambulance, but no one was present to see him make the call. When the ambulance arrived
Dawson and Downey were arrested for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Based onPhilip Zimbardo's "Lucifer Effect" and Erich
Fromm's "Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem", one can see Dawson and Downey were only "conforming to the group norm" and
responding to "irrational authority" or in other words " at the wrong place at the wrong time" which makes them innocent against the charge of murder.
In a period during Philip Zimbardo's talk, he stated that the point was to see what would happen if he put "really good people in a bad place".
Zimbardo's

Totalitarianism: Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt was a political philosopher who grew up in Germany and was born into a Jewish family. Arendt was one of the most prominent and
influential political philosophers of the twentieth century. Throughout her works, she discussed extremely catastrophic political events that she
experienced, and tried to examine these situations in relation to their meaning and how their historical importance is able to change our own moral and
political judgements. (d'Entreves, 2016) The film 'Hannah Arendt' depicts how Arendt responded to trial of Adolf Eichmann, a member of the Nazi
government. The film shows how Arendt received extreme criticism and abuse for her view on the Eichmann trial. However, she does not abandon her
opinion and remains strong... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In relation to thinking, she hopes to make it clear that it is different from "knowing". Understanding is having knowledge, whereas thinking applies to
beyond knowledge and conveys questions that cannot simply be answered by using knowledge. (Yar, n.d.) Thinking does not refer to gaining a solid
answer, rather it constantly gives more questions about people's actions and more. For Arendt, thinking is fundamental for political actions. She felt
that this concept of questioning the meaning of actions and experiences was not part of the Eichmann trial, thus leading her to state the "banality" of
Eichmann's evil. (Yar, n.d.) Arendt's idea of judgement can be linked in with her notion of thinking, but it also stands as its own concept. She had
planned to extensively examine her notion of judgement in the third volume of 'The Life of the Mind', but sadly died before she could do so.
However, she wrote a series of lectures on Immanuel Kant's political philosophy in which she discusses judgement. Arendt was no longer concerned
with judging "as a feature of political life", but was now focusing on judgement as a part of the life of the mind. Her theory of judgement uses two
models. The actors are those who judge in order to act. The spectators are those who judge to gain a full understanding from history.

Hannah Arendt: Banality Of Evil
The movie Hannah Arendt is about a political theorist who was a former German Jew that fled to America to escape the Nazi regime. She is mostly
known for writing "The Origins of Totalitarianism", a work that would give her the stature of being considered one of the 20th centuries greatest
thinkers. Her 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, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It seemed as if she had slighted the entire world because she spoke her mind about an observation she made. The loss of personal acquaintances was
what pained her the most, but she was steadfast to her convictions. She did not sympathize with a Nazi, she simply stated that his trial was not justly
performed, however, the sentence was correctly given. Many saw this as Arendt placing herself above the highest court. Even though she thought that
Eichmann should die for his involvement with the Nazi's, the people of the world, known and unknown to her, labeled her as unsympathetic to the
victims of the Holocaust. She was also criticized for her friendship/romantic relationship with Heidegger who had joined the Nazi party which further
fueled the suspicions of her affinity for Nazis. Twelve years after the Eichmann trials, Hannah was still haunted by her questions from the trail. She
revisited the information on several occasions to try to explain further what she had meant to say on that one piece that cost her so much despair.
Despite devoting her entire career to studying the power and underlying workings of politics which brought her much notoriety, all it took was one
disagreement about a sensitive subject to turn many against her, even those closest to

The Dark Knight And Arendt's Banality Of Evil
My class, From Pandora to Psychopathy: Evil from Antiquity to the Present, has collectively fine–tuned this definition of evil over the course of
10–weeks: "evil is a human activity in a word or deed that culpably inflicts suffering on other human beings and is that suffering itself." We came to
this definition by incorporating various authors and theories in regards to evil, its origins, and what it entails. We've been able to steadily tinker with the
definition of evil because the literature we review generates contrasting conceptions of evil. That being said, with the liberty to write about any topic, I
chose to focus on evil in modern popular culture through the lens of Stanley Milgram's experiment and Hannah Arendt's "banality of evil." ... Show
Oh and you know the thing about chaos, it's fair." The Joker is a proponent of anarchy; he doesn't believe in the established order that Harvey Dent
represents. The Joker isn't enamored with money or material goods because chaos satisfies his soul. The Joker is important to characterize because
he's the leader of the scene I will be focusing on. The Joker is successful in this movie because he manipulates an entire city to his liking. He blows up
hospitals, kills elected officials, and even burns the mob's money – all to create anarchy. The Joker reminds me of this class's discussion of morality and
evil because he forces people to reveal their true nature – especially in the face of death. The Joker shows that even the most virtuous men can turn
evil. The Joker shows that when people are confronted with uncertainty, they are susceptible to immoral actions. For example: the Joker threatened the
public that if they didn't kill a certain person, he would blow up a hospital. This led certain otherwise virtuous people to attempt to kill another man.
The Joker reveals some of the nastiness in human nature, but he also inadvertently reveals the goodness in peoples' heart. The scene where the public
inadvertently reveals virtue, in the toughest of times, is the scene I chose to keenly focus

Who Is Falling In Eichmann
As seen in the following scenes right in the beginning when Hannah Arendt was at the table with her old friend Kurt Blumenfeld just after Eichmann's
had expressed he had no part with the murder of Jews. Many Jewish people around them start expressing anger toward some of Hannah Arendt's
statements. As the camera moves around the table some Jews are stating that Eichmann is lying and Arendt disagrees , Even Blumenfeld believes that
Arendt is falling in Eichmann's trap. This scene starts to show the radical thinking of Arendt. Later on in the movie after Arendt has wrote the the
article for the New Yorker , the hatred toward her from many jews exploded. This is expressed strongly in the scene where the porter gives Arendt a
letter "on behalf

Eichmann In Jerusalem: A Report On The Banality Of Evil
be described as an act that would be considered unethical or immoral. Evil had different meaning back in the 1800's compared to what it means today.
Even in the 1600's, almost 1700's, which was when the witch trials began in colonial Massachusetts when more than 200 people were accused of
practicing witchcraft, the devil's magic, and 20 were executed because of these trials Lets take for example Hannah Arendt's situation when she was
listening in on Eichmann's testimony and wrote her essay: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality ofEvil. One thing Arendt certainly did not
mean was that evil had become ordinary, or that Eichmann and his Nazi cohorts had committed an unexceptional crime. She thought the crime was
exceptional, if not

Truth And Justice : A Lexicon Of Terror And The Banality...
Truth and Justice
"I believe that truth and justice will eventually triumph. It will take generations. If I am to die in this fight, then so be it. But one day we will triumph"
(Feitlowitz 133). There are many different aspects of truth and justices described in Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality
of Evil, Victoria Sanford's Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights inGuatemala and in Marguerite Feitlowitz 's A Lexicon of Terror, these aspects of
truth and justice play an important role in describing the tragedies in each respective book. The books also illustrate to readers why truth and justice in
general are necessary. Hannah Arendt'sEichmann in Jerusalem is a book about Adolf Eichmann who was a German ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the end, Eichmann was found guilty of overseeing the deaths of many different people. This trial, while it did bring some justice for the survivors
and those people who were killed in the Holocaust, it was not done in the truthful and just manner that many people would have hoped. The whole
purpose of the trial of Adolf Eichmann was to find out the truth of what really happened during the Holocaust, in regards to who was responsible for
different aspects of the Holocaust, and to bring justice for those who lost their lives, and for those who survived but had to suffer through the
Holocaust. Victoria Sanford's Buried Secrets: Truth and Human Rights in Guatemala is about La Violencia, a time in Guatemalan history where "the
Guatemalan army" was blamed "for 93 percent of the human rights violations, violations that were so severe and systematically enacted against the
whole Maya communities" (Sanford 14). It has been concluded that La Violencia, the acts that the Guatemalan army had committed were "acts of
genocide against the Maya" (Sanford 14). After all was said and done, and these horrific actions had been committed against the Maya it was important
for them to show the truth about what had happened to them. In Sanford's book she has a quote from Juan Manuel GerГіnimo where he says, "We
want people to know what happened here so that it does not happen here again, or in some other village in Guatemala, or in some other department, or
in some

Normalizing Thoughtlessness Essay
Arendt examined and reflected upon what happens to come too passed such as conditioning and normalizing the activity of 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 ofevil is standardizing as thoughtlessness into the unthinkable action of human's terrible deeds in a
systematic and methodical way to explain the normalization of the stupid acts of men. In Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem, I argue that the
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Homogenizing the death camps at a distance from execution helps render Eichmann's boundaries to be blurred. His understanding of responsibility
"was to give justice to both parties (Arendt page 45)." For him, it was clear who set the policies. His role was to implement and his job was not to
kill anyone besides following standardizing guidelines. Eichmann clearly follow his duties in the allocated of resources on the basis of effective
contribution of a larger system, workers derive support from interactions with others in the mutual effort, and complicity is masked by the routineness
of the work, interdependence, and distance from the results. He found ways to define and scrutinize away the infliction of suffering and death as a
consequence is to realize fear and a sense for us to defense ourselves.
Arendt reasons that Eichmann's life give him one aspect of the concept of evil as a banal lesson learned to show how individuals that was involved in
the trail of Eichmann as the present. It perpetrates the thoughtlessness of evil as ordinariness and is neither demonic nor monstrous, with no foresight
of the future. Arendt's insight of Eichmann as a common man is seen by his obvious shallowness, which left Ardent in amazement of the unaccounted
evil committed by him in organizing the deportation of Jews. What Arendt had detected in Eichmann was not stupidity, she perceived him as something
entirely unconstructive and thoughtless. Eichmann

Victarion's Concept Of The Banality Of Evil
genuine evil its place in a story. We want it in a story and we want to see it defeated. Victarion's kind of evil, however, is more annoying than
formidable. Victarion epitomizes the famous concept of the
"banality of evil" coined by Hannah Arendt. It's the antithesis of the dark, mysterious Luciferian evil that's simultaneously alluring and dangerous and
that Euron stands for.
In the last part of this profile, I want to progress to another question that's probably even more interesting: What does the future hold for Victarion
Greyjoy? What can we expect from him? He could, of course, simply be reined in by Euron and continue to be his puppet, but that would not make for
a good story, would it?
The biggest mystery to solve in that context is Moqorro. What role does he see for Victarion? Is he ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
And if so, will he continue to be? Or is he simply one more puppet master pulling Victarion's strings? Are his goal's the same as Melisandre's? How
much are all red priests on the same page? What does Moqorro think about Dany?
In the end it comes down to a simpler question: Whose man will Victarion Greyjoy be? Will he be
Euron's man? Will he be R'hllor's man, or Moqorro's version of R'hllor's, for that matter? Will he be
Dany's man? Or will he finally be his own man?
I am pretty sure that he will tear the strings that bind him one way or another. He will end the second siege of Meereen one way or another. And he
will make his move at Dany. I am under the impression that most people think that he has no chance whatsoever at marrying Dany. I am not so sure. It
would not be without precedent. Is Victarion so much different from Khal Drogo?

Analysis Of The Book ' Hannah Arendt '
In "Eichmann in Jerusalem," Hannah Arendt analyzes Adolph Eichmann while he is on trial in Jerusalem for the crimes that he committed while being
a Lieutenant Colonel in the SS during the Nazi Regime. In the book Arendt talks about how Eichmann's actions were "banal" in the sense that he
seemed to be an ordinary person who just committed acts that were evil. Italian–Jewish Writer Primo Levi, a Holocaust Survivor, states that SS officers
like Eichmann lived in their own self–deception that made them believe that their actions were caused by just following their orders in the SS. In this
paper, I will analyze the views that both Arendt and Levi had about the Eichmann trial and then compare and state the differences of their views. I will
then explain the reasons why both Hannah Arendt's and Primo Levi's analysis of Adolph Eichmann that show that the actions that he committed were
all truly evil actions. I'll first talk about Hannah Arendt's analysis of the Adolph Eichmann and also talk about how his motives for committing the
crimes were a "banality of evil". Viewing the trial first hand, Arendt bases her analysis of Eichmann of the criminal charges that he is indicted on, his
motives for the crimes, and how he tried to defend himself during the trial. The way that Arendt perceives Eichmann is by the fact that he was aware of
the seriousness of the crimes that he committed at the trial, but he did not have the "evil" motives that would usually be seen in the type of heinous

Hannah Arendt's Theory 'The Banal Evil'
Good people can cause severe harm if their motives are influenced by the values shared in a public corporation or are a result of manipulation
controlled by the law. Bob Henderson's ability to satisfy his interests to obtain success by dismissing social responsibility and contributing to the rise
in obesity is wrong. Hannah Arendt founded the theory "The banality evil' through analyzing Adolf Eichmann's case during the time of the Holocaust.
Eichmann and Henderson share similarities of both being ordinary men who influenced large scale harm. The intent of this essay will be to compare
and contrast the perception of evil and discuss at which point radical evil may be mistaken for banal evil. Hannah Arendt discovered a concept known
as "The... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Hitler cultivated his own army to destroy selective demographics, he wanted to create a world where his concept of ideal was the only one that
existed. As a dictator he was able to constitute laws, anyone who chose to disobey these laws would be executed. The laws that are put into place can
define success through evil acts. The Holocaust is a direct example; Hitler knew he would be able to brainwash human beings to obey his commands
contributing to the success of his dehumanizing scheme. Hannah Arendt's essay suggests she believes that the motives steered by Adolf Eichmann to
commit monstrous acts, where "once banal to all human" ( Arendt, Cp). Eichmann was viewed as a demonic monster for his immoral and corrupted
mind. Banal evil shares similarities with Radical evil, such that they can both result in extraordinary evil. Unlike radical evil, banal evil can be
committed by ordinary people. Eichmann lacked the ability to reflect and he seemed to think in terms of clichГ©s as his goal was to follow Hitler's
orders to undo God's creation and complete his job successfully and efficiently. Arendt argues that Eichmann was thoughtless and that possessing the
trait of thoughtlessness contributes to evil

Compare And Contrast Eichmann And The Holocaust
A man named Adolf Eichmann was one of the major organisers during the holocaust, which was mainly responsible for "the final solution" regarding
the eradication of the Jews. By the end of the war, Eichmann had been caught and arrested for the crimes he was accused of committing. However, he
argues that he had done nothing wrong and was only following his duties as well as obeying the law as a law–abiding citizen. This is where Hannah
Arendt, a leading political thinker in the 20th century had focused on the evils of bureaucracy. Questioning on how one could do what is considered to
be "evil" but is believed to be right without repulsion or hesitation. Firstly, Arendt considers Eichmann of being a "nobody" and he is only a result of a
thoughtless man incapable of think, rather than an evil monster. It was his inabilities to think that had resulted in the genocide, and this had brought
him the attentions of being a heartless man. During the trial, he showed no emotions of sympathy towards the killings of the victims; however, he
displayed annoyance... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Radical evil is apparent in totalitarian states since people had foolishly lost the very gift of what makes us human, which is the ability to be able to
think and reflect. Totalitarianism leads people to stop thinking, as it is a form of manipulation of one to believe of its necessity and pervasiveness in an
organized bureaucracy (Arendt, 1963). Relating to terrorism of the Paris shooting, the terrorist's have seemed to be manipulated and delusional of
righteous thoughts to be superior to others when in reality it is unnecessarily cruel. Similarly concerning with Eichmann's crimes, Arendt had learnt a
sad truth that evil is done by those who never constructed the mind to reconsider of others and values but rather of rigid thoughts and absence of
righteous

Yad Vashem's Analysis
However, since McDoom's theory is based on Rwanda, it is not comprehensive in explaining individual examples of defiance, which the majority of
rescue acts were. Because intention and motivation are notably impossible to determine, scholars have debated over the impetus for rescue; established
relationships, religion or the humanistic belief 'we are all human beings.' Pre–existing relationships were commonplace and are excluded from Yad
Vashem's 'Righteousness' criteria. Kristen Monroe tells the story of Irene, a Polish nurse compelled to hide Jews as she had close childhood
friendships with many Jewish girls, and had witnessed suffering in the ghettos. Irene instead likened the Germans, not the Jews, to 'cockroaches.' In
contrast, Joanna Michlic has emphasised 'the humanitarian desire to save innocent life.' This has been backed up by Jacques Semelin, who cites a
'banality of good' – in contrast to Hannah Arendt's often–quoted 'banality of evil' – suggesting that some people consider themselves connected to all
human beings 'through the bonds of common humanity.' The belief in charity, hospitality and the sanctity of life taught in the Polish Catholic Church
has also been cited as a key factor in the rescue of the Jews. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This is especially the case since Nechama Tec discredited the significance of the religious motivation by showing only 26 per cent of rescuers she
interviewed said religious thought had anything to do with their behaviour. Although it will remain unclear how many Poles rescued Jews, it is clear
that not all did, and so there must be something that separates rescuers and

Reaction Paper On Hannah Arendt
Hannah Arendt is a 2013 bio–pic directed by Margarethe von Trotta; about an important episode form the life of German–Jewish philosopher Hannah
Arendt (1906–1975) who was one of the most influential political theorists of the twentieth century. She was born in a German–Jewish family and was
forced to leave Germany in 1933. Actress Barbara Sukowa plays the role of Arendt as a complicated woman, who is a brilliant philosopher and also
stubborn at times. This film revolves around Hannah's controversial stand during the trial of ex–Nazi Adolf Eichmann, while she offered to report
hearing for the New Yorker in 1961. This film was able to make an impression on audiences worldwide and won few awards as best feature film (2013,
German film awards) ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Her main focus was to comprehend this new category of evil which is committed by thousands of common people without intellect but who are
excellent followers, much like robots. Also she never once disagreed that not every Nazi involved in the holocaust was banal. Some of them were
acting out of pure hate and projecting it on the Jews (Adorno, projection theory). Of course, there were exceptions like Oscar Schindler who had his
own ideology unlike Eichmann who was part of the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are
accepted as normal. Hannah willingly engaged in the path of enlightenment knowing the bitter consequences she might face. Although Arendt started
Eichmann in Jerusalem as a trial report, it became a literary masterpiece and still influences the intellectual community all over the

The Life Of The Mind By Hannah Arendt
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, otherwise you would be unrecognizable. But Arendt points out that you do not only appear
to others, you also exist and appear for yourself. In doing so, you become more than one. As Arendt paradoxically states, "A difference is inserted into
my Oneness" (183). Arendt's concept of the two–in–one surrounds the act of thinking. She describes the two–in–one as "be[ing] itself and at the same
time for itself" (185). You are never truly alone because your Oneness divides into two or more entities that, in a sense, converse with each other. We
generally consider ourselves alone when we are not in the company of others, yet Arendt argues that our minds are snapped into Oneness again when
we are surrounded by other people. Arendt describes this phenomenon, "Then, when he is called by his name back into the world of appearances,
where he is always One, it is as though the two into which the thinking process had split him clapped together again" (185). Arendt admits that thinking
is a

Banality Of Evil In The Brothers Karamazov
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 because the criminal steals from their victims. This is the banality of evil in which because the
criminal does not look like a monster they are not inherently evil, if anything the normality in their dress makes the crime even more wicked. The
banality of evil is pervasive in the way it can hide the real evil behind a mask of a common person. Evil is also the suffering of children especially
because we take their innocence away. It seems easy to have the suffering of one in order to prevent the suffering of many but this is a twisted
form of logic if the one suffering is a child. This type of evil is indefensible and I do not mean disciplining children I mean the excerpt of The
Brothers Karamazov. Both evils are essentially the result of a corrupted good in Mr. Eichmann's case he followed the wrong orders, and for Ivan
children's happiness was turned into children's suffering. The reason evil is difficult to pin down and list is because it is not a real demon creating world

Banality of Evil and Adolf Eichmann Essay
"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 was
put to death with Eichmann in 1962. The deliberation surrounding the issues of Eichmann's motives, however, are still in question, bringing forth
in–depth analyses of the aspects of evil.
Using Adolf Eichmann as a subject and poster–boy ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"The sort of person that Eichmann appeared to be did not square either with the deeds for which he was being tried or with the traditional
preconceptions about the kind of person who does evil" (Geddes). Throughout the trial, Arendt is conflicted by what she wants to seen when she
analyzes Eichmann, and struggles greatly when she finds he does not embody the crude and inhumane thoughts she associated with the history of the
Holocaust. It is this absence of the profound hatred of Jews, along with the normalcy he possesses, that creates the emblematic role of banal evil for
Adolf Eichmann.
A man who does not seem to be filled with rage, Eichmann can not been depicted as a satanic monster, clearly separate from citizens who fall under
terms such as normal or sane. In fact, he was a man who's goals were similar to all working class people. Eichmann's desires to be an idealist and a
successful businessman may draw sympathy, even though it is clearly taboo to consider someone normal if capable of participating in a genocide.
Studying Eichmann's relationships with Jews previous to his involvement in the Final Solution become counterintuitive when looking for any sign of
hatred he embodied toward the Jewish culture. "It is obvious there is no case of insane hatred of Jews, of fanatical anti–Semitism or indoctrination of
any kind" (26). Furthermore, he was related to Jews, as his mother had Jewish relatives.

Banality Of Evil Essay
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 of the doer." (Arendt). As a concept created through association with a specific
situation the "banality of evil" neither referred to the Holocaust nor Nazism's evil as a whole. At her writing the banality did not concern all of the agents
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Further, his motives were also banal: ordinary, trite and intrinsically non–criminal. He was ready to do anything to advance his career in the Nazi
bureaucratic grades. One of the most astonishing things about him was that anti–Semitism was not his foremost motive. Arendt chose to believe
Eichmann when he claimed not to harbor "ill feelings against his victims." (Arendt) Nonetheless, a lack of motive did not inhibit his fearsome
efficiency, insomuch as the murder of the Jews called for planning and the carrying out of the whole administration, state and party. The other side of
banality refers to the activities that produced such evil. These activities were not murderous in themselves. Merely office work such as organizing
transport, deciding how many Jews should be deported Eichmann knew that the Jews were to be killed, and how they were to be killed. Yet Arendt's
emphasis was that "he [Eichmann]...never realized what he was doing." (Arendt). Namely, he did not connect his activities to their eventual
consequences. Arendt identifies such a lack of imagination and the inability to adopt another's viewpoint as "a curious, quite authentic inability to think"

Compare And Contrast Milgram And Zimbardo
Although both Milgram and Zimbardo both preach the banality of evil and the human tendency to be obedient to authority figures, Reicher Haslam
is not willing to accept the banality of evil as a universal truth. Instead, he cites evidence from examinations of Nazi German leaders, who were given
orders to kill Jews, but these orders were not specific. Therefore, the Nazi leaders had some creative control in the concentration camps and weren't
conforming to direct orders. He also references the BBC Prison Study, a study similar to the Zimbardo Prison Experiment, in which the test subjects
questioned their assigned roles of either prison guard or prisoner, and even those who accepted their roles did not necessarily act brutally. In addition,
Haslam... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
That is why I found Stjepan Mestrovic's article on the torture at Abu Ghraib to be a reliable source of information. Rather than design an experiment,
Mestrovic interviewed soldiers from the Abu Ghraib incident. He found that the military system at the time was created to protect high ranked
officials at the expense of lower ranked soldiers: "the military deliberately trains its soldiers to behave like abusive and killing machines, and when
that abuse is exposed, it just as deliberately throws accused soldiers into a machinelike legal process designed to produce convictions and scapegoats"
(Mestrovic). This argument is backed by the Levin–McCain Report in 2008, which found that soldiers were intentionally ordered to torture and abuse
prisoners, and in fact did not act sadistically on their own (Mestrovic). Although Mestrovic's work comes to the same conclusions as Milgram and
Zimbardo, the conformity to authority figures came was forced because of their military system that protected high ranking officials rather than as a
result of the banality of

Zeno Franco And Zimbardo Analysis
Zeno Franco and Philip Zimbardo offer the idea that heroism can be adopted by every individual, and how we can implement this embodiment into
everyday life. Franco and Zimbardo explain the "banality of evil" is when an ordinary person under a certain condition or social pressure can commit
inhumane acts, and this could be proven through behavioral science. Nevertheless, Franco and Zimbardo suggest that just like evil there could be a
"banality of heroism"; furthermore, this suggests that one could nurture heroism through the heroic imagination. Franco and Zimbardo emphasize the
importance of the heroic imagination; furthermore, the heroic imagination grants individuals the ability to imagine themselves as heroes. In addition,
allowing individuals

Dangerously Compliant: Yale University's Experiments on...
How far would you go to be obedient? At Yale University, Stanley Milgram set up an experiment testing how much pain a person would cause to an
ordinary citizen, only with the reason of being told to do so by an experimental scientist. The subject is told that they are helping with an experiment on
punishment–based learning and believe they are conducting this test on someone other than themself. What the subjects do not know is that the true
experiment is testing them, not another person. The subjects send an increasing amount of pain to another person. If the subject wishes to discontinue,
he must complete the experiment or clearly resist authority. What Milgram found in this study was that adults would go to severe lengths to obey their...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For the most part, the theory that all people have aggressive instincts was wrong. Twenty–five out of forty subjects obeyed the scientist to the end, and
two subjects went up to 325 and 450 volts. Those who shocked the victim at the most severe levels came from a brutal society. Some were aware of
their harmful actions but could not let themselves disobey. They told themselves that they were listening and being good by doing so. It made light of
the situation when they thought they were doing a great job. When told what the actual experiment was, the subjects were amazed, comparing it to the
events of the holocaust. Milgram states, "I must conclude that Arendt's conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth that one might dare
imagine" (587). "Banality of evil" was a phrase used in the trial where Eichmann showed no guilt for his actions and claimed that he only partook in the
events of the holocaust because he was doing his job. Only a third as many people were obedient through 450 volts when the experiment was altered to
where the experimenter gave his instructions by telephone instead of in person. The experimenter's authority was not strong and the experiment was
not of high importance, yet the subjects still obeyed. They were not threatened with punishment, but with the failure of obeying. When the subject's
only task was to read the questions, they later blamed the execution on the person

Stanley Milgram Impact
Milgram has an enduring impact. His work has influenced society, though his work was incomplete. In "What Makes a Person a Perpetrator? The
Intellectual, Moral, and Methodological Arguments for Revisiting Milgram's Research on the Influence of Authority" by S. Gibson, he discusses other
factors overlooked in Milgram's experiments and demonstrates certain points through the Adolf Eichmann.
While Eichmann was on trial for his crimes in WWII, at Yale, Milgram was leading studies. He owed a lot of his inspiration to Hannan Arendt and
her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, where she detailed the trial. In it, she coined the phrase "the banality of evil" to describe how regular people
commit atrocities for banal reasons, like 'I was just doing what I ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The 'everyman' portrayals of the actors, the scripts, the drama of it all. There was also a conflict of interests created, because he was the maker of the
documentary and the scientific investigator at the center of the experiments. It has been argued that the success of the experiment is because of how
Milgram handled the stagecraft, and how that in itself popularized his theories on obedience. The documentary may be compelling at face value, but
the scripted–nature of the film, and the lack of scientific process and experiment used was not acceptable. The director himself was biased from the
beginning to one side of the 'obedience to authority' argument and it showed. And with the results of the 'Bring A Friend' condition not adding up to his
original findings, more scrutiny was added to Obedience and it fell out of

Anne Frank And Hannah Arendt: A Look At Human Nature
Lauren Czolgosz Anne Frank and Hannah Arendt: A Look at Human Nature The Diary of Anne Frank is a personal work written by the young
Anne Frank herself. The book is not a work of fiction, rather, it is Frank's real life account of her experiences during the atrocities of the Holocaust
as a Jew. She tells her story through entries in her diary, which she refers to as her best friend throughout the book. Because of their Jewish beliefs,
Frank and her family had to go into hiding in order to escape harm from the Nazi party, and the majority of entries revolve around this time spent in
what they called "the Secret Annex". Frank's diary was published by her father after her death in the concentration camp at Bergen–Belsen in Germany
because in her... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In fact, her book revolves around careful explanations of her views of a man who was significantly involved in the deportation process of the
Jewish people to the concentration camps during the Holocaust. This man's name is Adolph Eichmann. After attending his trial in Jerusalem on
April 11, 1961 in order to write a report on it for the popular news source called the New Yorker, Arendt became a very controversial name both in
everyday households and among philosophers. Arendt's first version of this book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: the Banality of Evil, was not a book at
all, it was a series of news stories that appeared in the New Yorker, which was later formed into a book. Eichmann in Jerusalem is a radical work that
resulted in much hatred from the public when it was taken as a defense of the heinous acts committed by Adolph Eichmann during the Holocaust.
However, once a deeper, more thorough look is taken into the book, Arendt's belief becomes clear. She is not defending or supporting Eichmann in
any way, she is simply looking at his justification for his deeds from a face value

Banality Of Evil
We are given the right of free will and to act as autonomous, but in exchange for this, we must take 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 that the court decides how much culpability the individual is responsible for. There are, of course, legal defenses that either reduce...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Arizona, it examines culpability and the free will of individuals in a different manner. Three brothers: Ricky, Raymond, and Donald Tison enter the
Arizona State Prison with an ice chest of guns to break their father and his cellmate from jail. They were fortunate enough to break out their father,
Gary Tison, and his friend, Randy Greenawalt, out of prison without firing a single shot. They managed to use their getaway vehicle to escape but a
few days later, their car gained a flat. They flagged a passing car with the plans of stealing it and a family, the Lyons, stopped by the road. The Lyons
were removed from their vehicle and placed into the car with the flat tire, where they were then driven into the desert. The Tison brothers went out to
fetch water for the family and while they were out, Gary and Randy shot the Lyon family. When the brothers returned, they were surprised, but they did
not attempt to turn in their father or his cellmate. Instead, shortly after, they engaged in a shootout with the police, resulting in the death of Donald and
Gary; the latter escaping into the desert where he died of exposure. The remaining Tison brothers and Randy were arrested and tried for a number of
offenses, including murder. They were originally convicted of the murders, but the Tison brothers later appealed their sentences. They appealed their
decision with respects to the Enmund v. Florida case which determined that one "cannot be sentenced to death unless it's been proven beyond a
reasonable doubt that they committed or intended to commit a murder" (Culbert 208). It was agreed in the Supreme Court that the Tison brothers did
not have the intention or motive to kill the Lyons, much less be the one to pull the trigger that killed them. However, the court did not commute the
brothers' death sentences due to the standard of culpable mental

The Banality Of Evil Through Realism

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Susan Anderson

More from Susan Anderson (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Banality Of Evil Through Realism