Banality of Evil What Is the Relationship

Banality of Evil

What is the relationship between the banality of evil and the ordinariness of goodness?

Justas the 'banality of evil' was committed by apparently ' regular' ordinary' people who proceeded with the premise that their actions were acceptable based on their indoctrinations or cultural teachings (as e.g. By the third Reich) and, therefore, 'evil' lost its maliciousness and became ordinary, so too, as per David Blumenthal (1999), goodness is also normalized and becomes banal through systems of social hierarchy, education, and childhood discipline that shape both good and evil attitudes and actions.

2.How do both torturers and the tortured come to terms with their circumstances? Are their similarities between these processes?

Torture not only causes pain to the body but can also cause associated damage and corruption to the psyche. The torturer, on the other hand, may not experience physical pain but will certainly experience the same damage to his psyche.

Torture induces in the victim feelings of shame, lack of self, dependency, humiliation, and loss of self-esteem. Research also shows that certain critical faculties of the brain may shut down during torture, and the individual is more susceptible to brainwashing or indoctrination. His situation seems normal to him and he becomes more used to it, accepting it as the banality of his or her existence.

The act of torture to the perpetrator induces a similar lack of self. Initially, a possibly gentle individual who was indoctrinated by his society to do certain acts, and finding the initial cruel acts difficult to do, the torturer may soon become immune to his situation and resilient to his activities. His activities, in effect, convert him into a psychopath. The same gray cell regions of his brain shut down, and he, to, comes to terms with his circumstances rationalizing, if not condoning the consequences of his actions that may have been indoctrinated into him, too, by his or her environment. The awfulness of his acts soon become banal to him and become part of the ordinariness of his existence.

3. Does the UN human rights system represent an effective approach for promoting international human rights? Why or why not?

It seems to me that the UN deals with 'evil;' after it occurs not with its prevention, and, therefore, deals inadequately with the situation

The UN often promotes and protects international human rights in a cautious manner based primarily on the premise that it is host to an extremely diverse group of nations with varying social, economic, cultural, and historical backgrounds and, therefore, must proceed cautiously when 'stepping on their territory'. For this reason, their methods are often less substantive and less rigidly enforced than their critics would like them to be.

The UN's system for promoting international human rights consists of a three-pronged approach: (1) it established international standards through its charters, legally binding treaties, non-binding declarations, agreements, and documents; (2) it puts together and mandates Special Rapporteurs and experts, and groups, such as working groups, committees and treaty bodies, to work for the promotion and protection of human rights, and (3) it offers technical assistance through the Voluntary Fund for Advisory Services and Technical Assistance in the field of Human Rights.