Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kfpswf t1_j248w4j wrote

Excerpt:

Hanna Arendt believed that the banality of evil is what happened when we don’t understand the full consequences of our actions. Thus, evil is a cognitive error born by humans’ limited intelligence.

The sentence seems butchered, but I agree with the overall conclusion. That evil can only exist in a warped perception of an individual.

116

Slapbox t1_j24yzo4 wrote

Her actual quote:

> Good can be radical; evil can never be radical, it can only be extreme, for it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension yet--and this is its horror--it can spread like a fungus over the surface of the earth and lay waste the entire world. Evil comes from a failure to think. -- Hannah Arendt

86

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j25f7qw wrote

She realised it when watching the defense speach of a Nazist in a court, saying that he doesn't feel responsable for sending millions of Jewish to Death because he did it not as his intention, he did it because his duty was to follow orders of his superiors.

Hannah Arendt then said that when we don't feel responsable for what we do, because of hierarchy duties or because of law obedience, then we don't feel responsable for the consequence of our actions. So evil is banalised.

It is important to remember that during Nazist regime killing most people didn't care about it, either in Germany or abroad. The war was not about. It was only after the war that the mass killing was used as propaganda by the winners about saving its victmes from the Evil regime. And even up today it is most about the Jewish while you rarely see any mention about the mass killing of disabled people, mental ill, etc.

The reason I mention it is because I am disabled in Germany and my experience as disable feels the same as living in a Nazist society back then. I actually was made disabled by my neighbours and they still keep causing a lot of torture and disabling things to me. But whenever I look for help from friends and authorities they don't show to care at all. They all mention the law that about my neighbours having the right to do what they do regardless the consequences it causes to me. And they think like this because they are doctrinated that society must respect the laws and authority orders for the orders sake. Even if it means sacrificing people, because otherwise it means corrupting the rule of order. And this is exactly the reason so much evil was being accepted and banalised in Nazist regime. And the reason the Nazist Hannah Aren't was watching in court justified him sending millions to death and not feeling guilty or responsable.

When we look at society today, people didn't change. It is exactly as it was at the time of Nazist regime. Although there are many antifas in my neighbourhood claiming they protect the minorities from nazists, they are just as the same as the people who didn't care about disabled people being sent to death when I look for help. They tell me what the nazists said back then, that it is the law and the law is above of all things, because of order sake.

44

SanctusSalieri t1_j25igrh wrote

Taking a surface reading of Arendt's idea of the banality evil (which isn't clearly the best description of all behavior we can call evil) and extrapolating the idea that Nazism was banal and equivalent to your trouble getting recognition and all the services you might want as a disabled person in a rich country is actually kind of insane.

26

Grandpies t1_j26xnws wrote

The person you're responding to is not saying Nazism is banal. Eichmann in Jerusalem is about the mental gymnastics certain high-ranking Nazis went through to dress up genocide as bureaucratic humdrum. Arendt basically argues that Eichmann was very stupid, failed upward into a position of power, and managed to convince himself he was just doing his job.

Have you read the book, or just this comment thread?

12

SanctusSalieri t1_j26zk1t wrote

I have read the book. The person I'm replying to very specifically said Nazism is banal, which is what I took issue with.

"When we look at society today, people didn't change. It is exactly as it was at the time of Nazist regime."

They are saying Nazism's qualities are humdrum, quotidian, unsurprising, and perpetual rather than specific and historically circumscribed.

I'm always shocked when people with poor reading comprehension so confidently accuse others of misunderstanding.

−1

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j274suz wrote

I was not saying that we live in a Nazist system or Nazist like sistem today. I said that the way people trusted authorities rule of order over people welbing that allowed Nazist atrocities to happen and being accepted by many, is similar to how people see others suffering today ans trying to justify it because of laws or authorities decisions.

Many of the people who accepted the slavement of people (working at no nazist family houses and farms) and kidnapping of minorities during Nazist regime were not Nazist supporters but just "good citizens" (following the authorities rules to better self benefit from its system even if it means sacrificing minorities).

Or to put it shorter, it is like what Deleuze and Guattari wrote on Anti-Oedipus, that we all have a little fascist inside us that we must be very careful to not let it out.

It is my way to say that we all have a potencial of abusive relashionship with others that we must not take advantage of by convincing ourselves that we have a good reason to take such advantage by saying to ourselves that is not our fault but just how things are.

9

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j25iugv wrote

I read most works of Hannah Arendt and know very well the Banality of Evil concept and how she developed its thinking.

The nazist defence I mentioned is called the Eichmanm Trial. I suggest you to look for this title written by Hannah Arendt. Or Eichmann in Jerusalem.

10

SanctusSalieri t1_j25j4ad wrote

Nothing you are going through is at all similar to Nazi death camps, it's extremely insensitive to suggest it is. Have some perspective.

Edit: just saw your edit. Yeah. I've read Eichmann in Jerusalem. That's the whole premise of this discussion.

5

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j25jrba wrote

I never compared what I am experiencing with Nazist death camps.

8

SanctusSalieri t1_j25kxnw wrote

Your comment is actually still public, so it's bold to contradict what you just wrote.

−14

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j25uxd5 wrote

The English isn’t great but I suspect the point they are trying to make is the problems are same even though the degree is obviously much less. As in the Nazi regime is a hyperbolical manifestation of the same basic problems humans have always and still do have

8

SanctusSalieri t1_j25wlu3 wrote

I don't think the Nazis were "normal stuff but more" or even an extreme version of stable "human nature" or something. They were a particular and brutal regime born out of peculiar historical circumstances.

2

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j25zs2v wrote

I think the only think that was peculiar about the historical circumstances was “modern” technology and our sudden exponential capacity for atrocity in what was otherwise a pretty typical war with a dictator who “inspired” people in a bad place. Furthermore I don’t think there’s anything stable about human nature, I think much like the point of the post and the idea of the banality of evil, the only really stable thing is the social systems that control us

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26505i wrote

The immediate context of the end of WWI, longstanding German and European traditions of antisemitism, the rise of an attempt to explain individual human prospects through genetics (and control populations through eugenics), Romanticism, the invention of nationalism through folkloric identification with an imagined past, pro-natalism for a select population (directly related to eugenics) and a corresponding ideology of Lebensraum, a dissatisfaction with Weimar democracy and a willingness to put faith in an outsider dictator... there are a lot of things going on with Nazism.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26amkh wrote

I don’t see how any of those are particularly unique fads as far as humanity goes, again we aren’t a stable bunch. It is definitely a modern evolutionary of pretty old supremacist ideas, but supremacy is nothing new and all those are just excuses for it that nazis used to their advantage. Any new idea is still just viewed through the same limited lens any one of us short lived predictable assholes can see it through

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26d65v wrote

Well, historians get to decide these things and having been one, they would all disagree.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26hvzb wrote

What makes these extremist views exceptional compared to all the other extreme xenophobic desperate supremacist ideas through all of history, to the point where they couldn’t even be considered much worse but similar but apparently completely unique compared to everything we’ve done naturally up until that point

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26izz4 wrote

Historians tend to historicize. That means first treating particular events using an empirical method and understanding them on their own merits. Then synthesizing explanations, comparative studies, and so on. They do this because it's the best way to do history. Generally they would avoid the morally loaded and aggrieved tone you're taking. Saying something is peculiar and particular doesn't preclude comparison, and it is not anjudgment of gravity, seriousness, or worthiness of study.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26kt1d wrote

I don’t see how I’m posing a moral question, and I definitely don’t think I’m asking even a particularly hard or loaded question. You said these events are set apart from history, I asked how because they seem at least on the surface quite typical if very extreme, you said historians decide what’s extreme (which is a non answer and an ad hominem response to be clear), and again I asked the same and your response was to tell me exactly how historians go about categorizing events. If you understand how they go about this and the synthesized explanations and comparative studies that have went into the topic then it shouldn’t be that hard to give me at the least an ELI5 about what exactly separates these things from the other seemingly similar events in history. You said these events are unique and I’m literally just asking why

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26lv0f wrote

I said the exact opposite of "set apart from history." I offered some of the particular historical conditions that allow us to understand the events. By generalizing between situations as diverse as Nazi Germany and 21st Century Europe or America you misunderstand both -- and misunderstanding the present is quite serious because we might want to do something to change it.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26mtoy wrote

You didn’t say they were particular you said they were peculiar. As in unique. As in OPs argument (or at least my interpretation of their poor English) was invalid because these events you listed shared nothing in common with current or past events. That’s the problem here I made a pretty general statement and you denied it wholely.

You clearly have a deeper understanding of secular history than the both of us but you aren’t exactly sharing that wisdom if you just name a bunch of ideas and movements related to the period without even slightly pointing out why they unique and not just generational permutations of typical trends which is what I said and what I understand OP to be saying.

I said why are those different and you’ve essentially said “just trust me bro”

Edit: to be fair you also said they were particular but that wasn’t what I took issue with

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26o2r9 wrote

I explained that history as a profession emphasizes uniqueness due to it being an empirical discipline, and generational permutations of typical trends isn't a thing they do. That's not the same as incommensurability. It's fortunate that history has contingency and particularity, if we like the idea that things could be different than they are. But we don't focus on particularity because it's comforting, but because it's informative.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26puq9 wrote

Are we in a disciplinary setting here? I can somewhat appreciate why history as a discipline would operate under such conditions because like you said it’s informative, but again it’s seems you’ve applied a pretty narrow group language to a general discussion and used it as an absolute rule.

My point being that fact that history as a study and discipline won’t bother drawing correlation between “typical trends” doesn’t mean there are none, it just means they aren’t worth secular study. Furthermore if you are going to state as fact that there is nothing the same between past acts and modern, and especially when it’s given such a wide berth saying they are “similar but one is clearly more extreme/heinous”, simply stating that historians don’t bother quantifying such a thing isn’t really an argument for it’s not existing

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26qpbl wrote

I specifically said you can compare, but the comparison made obfuscated both points of reference rather than illuminating anything. I became a historian because I'm convinced it's methodology is the correct one for precisely these kinds of questions.

1

AStealthyPerson t1_j25ye8t wrote

I didn't see the words "death camp" in their description of how disabled people are treated in today's society anywhere. They said that our society is "Nazist" when it comes to dealing with disabled folks, which is largely correct. This user took a great deal of time to explain how they have been denied access to help by authorities in dealing with personal acts of terrorism committed by their neighbors against them. They may not have extrapolated on the situation much, and I'm sure there's more too it than what we know, but it sounds very in line with Nazi attitudes towards racist/antisemitic/homophobic/ableist "vigilantes" during the Nazi regime. Germany just had a failed right wing coup, same as the US, and it's not hard to see how there could be reactionary people in real positions of power who prevent aide and comfort from being provided to the "otherized" of society (especially at the local level). We are a society with deeply embedded hierarchies, and as economic prospects continue to worsen, these folks in charge of said hierarchies are more likely to become reactionary than progressive.

5

SanctusSalieri t1_j265agu wrote

Eichmann literally organized transportation to death camps. I am not ad libbing death camps, it is the context of the discussion and the most notable feature of Nazi Germany.

5

monsantobreath t1_j26ij3q wrote

>and the most notable feature of Nazi Germany.

And that's worst thing about our perception of Nazism. As if unless you're engineering such industrial murder there's no right to discuss its qualities as they are found outside the third Reich.

So much happened before the final solution.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26imzh wrote

Imagine not understanding what "most notable" means.

1

monsantobreath t1_j26u65x wrote

Most notable doesn't mean when it's mentioned that this is what's being referenced.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26zok7 wrote

I said "most notable," and you thought that meant "there's no right to discuss its [other] qualities." So you misinterpreted the phrase quite seriously.

1

monsantobreath t1_j279pwv wrote

Why would you bring death camps in at all then? I feel like you're back peddling and trying to not act like you are.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j27du3i wrote

Because death camps are the most notable feature of the Nazi regime.

1

monsantobreath t1_j298mr4 wrote

This is circular. You had a bad take and that's that.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j29dyp4 wrote

Yeah, you asked the same question and the answer has not changed. What do you expect? There's no bad take in saying that death camps are relevant to any discussion of Eichmann and the most notable feature of the Nazi regime. I genuinely don't understand what your issue is, your entire behavior here is inscrutable.

1

monsantobreath t1_j2fm2mz wrote

It's actually not a good take to suggest that in discussing Nazism you can invalidate someone's comparison by saying "but there are no death caps".

It's ridiculous really. It reduces such a broad systemic evil into a single point and makes drawing any parallels impossible because it's not 1941 in eastern Europe.

1

sammarsmce t1_j288kpp wrote

Any instance of fascism is fascism. Don’t start with the “some people have it worse” I really don’t like you and you need to leave them alone.

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j291t1q wrote

Present day Germany is not fascist. Words have meaning and if you don't know what fascism is there are books that could help you. Calling present day Germany fascist misconstrues history and the present and makes us less informed than we would be by having a proper analysis of what is going on.

1

cassidymcgurk t1_j25temb wrote

He said it was like living in nazi germany, which i suspect a lot of us feel, wherever we are

0

SanctusSalieri t1_j25ucp3 wrote

I don't feel that at all... then again I have degrees in history so I have had occasion to think about this a little more maybe.

4

sammarsmce t1_j288hkq wrote

I think it’s insane that you would respond to a comment by a disabled person expressing their own experience with evil and calling it insane. You need empathy and have just ironically exemplified the ethos of the original theory.

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j29295w wrote

It's extremely pedantic to suggest disabled people can't be responsible for what they say and need to be handled with kid gloves. The fucking ironic thing is I'm also disabled. Does that mean you need to delete your comment and agree with everything I say? Or am I owed the dignity of being treated like anyone else arguing a position?

2

uncletravellingmatt t1_j25v62i wrote

> I actually was made disabled by my neighbours and they still keep causing a lot of torture and disabling things to me.

I feel as if, once you've brought this up, you need to expand and explain what you mean by it. Was it not something you could sue over, for example?

6

ThorDansLaCroix t1_j262bwm wrote

I tried many times sue my neighbours with the help of lawers of Tenant Union and ÖRA. In both places they told me that there is nothing then can do because by law my neighbours have the right to do as much noise at night as they want.

The actually law says that there is a limit but in reality, unless it is a noise stupid loud the police can hear from the streets it is difficult to gain any case against noisy neighbours.

Because I have a neighbour who do craft work at all night just behind my wall that is not solid, I can not sleep, work, study or concentrate on anything. Before I could still survive with it by wearing always a earplug or headphones. But the excessive use of them caused me a chronic neurological problem and now I am very sensitive to noises. And when it gets too bad it actually cause me somatic pains on my ears.

But accounting to Lawers I need a friend or neighbours as witnesses bit my "friends" and neighbours don't care because it is not their wall, so it don't effect them. They assume I am just over reacting although I am in neurological therapy and I have documents from psychiatic center stating that I urgently need to move to an other apartment.

On top of that the Lawers said there is nothing they can do even if the neighbours are causing me harm and chronic illness, or making me sleep in in a park as a homeless, because the law protects their right to do whatever noise they want at night if nobody else feels effected by it.

One of the lawes really said that me being disabled is my problem because the law is made according to the majority.

So it is literally what I said earlier, that the society where I live is 100% OK with people destroying others life, health and cause literal torture to others, as long as the law allows it. They don't feel responsable for the harm that is caused to others because they don't see it as their choice but only their duty to respect the rule of law above all things. If the law allow it they see it as they not being responsable for they cause to others (since the law says so).

This alienation is so intrinsic in this society that I know a woman who lives in a building next to mine with the same problem. She also is disabled but she has chronic fatigue. When I tried to talk about us not getting help because of people putting the law order above all things, she expressed that people are right. That there is nothing they can do because it is the law. Just like me she is a victme of ableim and of people abusing of their rights, but she is educated that she is the problem for being the exception (being chronically ill). Or like the lawer told me "It is your problem". Because they are educated that the law is what keep Germany a society of order.

6

sammarsmce t1_j288cin wrote

Hey honey, thank you for your well written and informative response. I am so sorry you have been oppressed by the people in your area just know you have my support and if you need anything I am a message away.

2

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24k3s5 wrote

I would disagree with her definition because I believe that the banality of evil is what happens when we do understand the full consequences of our actions, and just don’t care enough to change them.

Evil is not a cognitive error unless we are defining it as mental illness or defect. To me, true evil requires intent.

18

ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j24kikk wrote

Those consecuences long term are negative so there is a part of ignorance in that evil.

9

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24lhf8 wrote

Why do you assume that those consequences are negative for the person acting, or that they care? And how do you separate true ignorance versus willful ignorance?

3

RegurgitatingFetus t1_j24nhce wrote

And how do you detect intent, humor me.

1

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24o6bz wrote

Ok, the easiest way is to ask if the consequences were intentional, or it may even be documented. Now, why do you ask? Why do we need to detect the intent for the purposes of a theoretical discussion?

2

ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j24sfwe wrote

Legally and inherited from roman Rights, anything to be considered a crime needs: intentionality ( evil or not) and fault ( the wrongdoing itself that is maybe not born of evil intentions but brings pain and suffering, and therefore is bad ) example: murder ( evil- evil) v.s homicide in self defense (you kill someone but the motivation is not killing, the crime happens as a consecuence of protecting yourself . Of course it is still a crime even when the consecuences are not intentional .

I think the ethic rules for robots made by Asimov played around this; what should an AI do to protect us from ourselves?

3

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24v23v wrote

I am only referring to the intentionality to seek the consequences. True evil considers the consequences as evil and doesn’t care. The banality of evil is when you don’t consider the consequences as evil. The intent to cause the consequences is the same either way.

5

ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j284oji wrote

Thank you. Then, I see that sometimes the difference between true evil and banal evil is a social construct, "bad" behaviours are rationalised to be congruent with a good self image, ( "it was my job, I had to do it for the better" ) this happens when no universal ethics are displayed and I think we have a consensus of what are the human rights but there isnt an universal ethic for all humanity, that is a problem philosophy psychology and sociology have to solve.

1

SchonoKe t1_j25ddq3 wrote

The book in its entirety is closer to what you said than that quote.

The book talks about how Eichmann knew full well what he was doing and what was happening (he once even used his position to “save” some from the camps by broker a quid pro quo deal, IIRC managed to forget this fact during his trial because it was such a minor event to him personally) but cared far more about his career and doing his job well as it was assigned rather than doing the right thing.

7

SanctusSalieri t1_j25inxn wrote

It's also important that Eichmann was a lying sack of shit mounting a desperate legal defense and certainly participated willingly in everything he did and shared the Nazi ideology.

2

Whiplash17488 t1_j25ya7e wrote

I think its more that the nazi’s thought they were the good guys, genuinely rather than people doing evil for the sake of evil.

The cognitive error Arendt based it on was Eichmann’s trial in Jeruzalem. Eichmann was responsible for the orchestration of the logistics of the holocaust.

Eichmann’s values were that efficiency is good. A good work ethic is good. That’s the way to move up in the world and provide for your family. That’s the way to fit in and become homogeneous with your community.

The cognitive dissonance of the evil his actions were causing was pushed down and abstracted away on paper and numbers and quotas.

Similarly, someone might say a drone pilot pressing a button on his joystick causing children to die in collateral damage isn’t “evil”. Well it is to some. Others are just trying to do a good job.

My examples are imperfect, but the premise of her argument is that nobody is capable of assenting to a judgement they think is evil. Everyone assents to doing “good” at some level.

Her paper was intentionally controversial and was not meant as an excuse for the holocaust.

8

kfpswf t1_j26gwv2 wrote

>I think its more that the nazi’s thought they were the good guys, genuinely rather than people doing evil for the sake of evil.

Yes, that's the 'warped perception' I was referring to. It was a worldview of a very insecure, power-drunk Hitler that became their guiding light.

>My examples are imperfect, but the premise of her argument is that nobody is capable of assenting to a judgement they think is evil. Everyone assents to doing “good” at some level.

Your example are great actually. Yes, as long as you can brainwash people into believing they're doing good, and we know how easy it is to do so, people will continue to commit evil rather enthusiastically.

>Her paper was intentionally controversial and was not meant as an excuse for the holocaust.

It may not have focused on the overall evil of the holocaust, but the general mechanism is the same. You adopt a flawed or limited worldview, and then commit evil in the name of your greater good.

1

Whiplash17488 t1_j26yi1b wrote

I realize now I wrote that comment as a response for someone else and accidentally posted it to you. There isn't a single thing you said I disagree with even though I started with "I think its more that..." which implies I took a different take than you. Not the case. My bad.

5

kfpswf t1_j275679 wrote

No worries friend. We have nothing to debate about. Have a good day!

3

RyghtHandMan t1_j27tcvf wrote

Quote from the movie 1408:

> Some smartass spoke about the banality of evil. If that's true, then we're in the seventh circle of Hell.

>It does have its charms.

2