How Eichmann was evil

The concept of good and evil has perpetuated mankind for centuries. It has provided numerous philosophical doctrines and principles in which to live by. The idea has also created foundational principles which are embedding all factors of life including religion, government, law, and psychology. Although definitions can vary wildly depending on the individual religion, the common concept of kindness and morality has many common traits. Likewise, the concept of evil has many different definitions but can be identified by society in general terms. For example, many view the actions of Adolf Hitler during the holocaust as “evil” irrespective of how varied their definitions may be. The holocaust is almost universally regarded as evil throughout the world. The question then is, “If evil is so universally known, how then could an entire nation participate in such evil deeds in the holocaust? Can someone commit an evil act without necessarily being evil themselves? The answer lies with political theorist Hannah Arendt who reported on the criminal trial of Adolph Eichmann.

To begin, Eichmann participated in what many regards as one of the evilest acts ever conducted by mankind. Eichmann, like many of his contemporaries, escorted millions of Jews to concentration, where many would eventually die. Eichmann, however, was not the sadistic, perverted, or terrifying Nazi that we often read and hear about. Instead, Eichmann was more akin to your standard, run-of-the-mill employee. Hannah Arendt in her now famous study explained that Eichmann never realized what he was doing due to an inability to think from the standpoint of somebody else. Eichmann lacked empathy while on the surface is difficult to believe when dealing act such as the holocaust. However, his lack of empathy was a cognitive condition for him to feel as though he was doing wrong. Here Arendt, explains two characteristics that caused Eichmann to behave in the way he did. First, Eichmann, was both shallow and clueless. From a cognitive perspective he chose not to concern himself with issues that he believes were not his own. Next, he was a man who was in search for a purpose in life which he found in the Nazi party. As such Arendt believed that Eichmann was a part of an evil organization but was not an evil person himself (Adelman, 2016).

Further, as with many individuals in society, they attempt to present a false or fake side of themselves to obtain approval. Eichmann is not unique to this approach. Our society overall welcomes this kind of “fake perception.” Here a person will attempt to show a side of themselves that they believe will be accepted by the public at large while mitigating the elements of their personality that society will find repulsive. This occurs heavily in the social media space as heavily users of various platforms attempt to pander to certain crowd to receive adulation. This adulation often proves fleeting as it is often reviewed that the life the individual portrays on social media is far from the actual life they are living. The same concept applies to Eichmann where the personality he is attempted to portray in a limited setting in court is far from the personality and behavior we saw when he was facilitating the deaths of millions of Jews. In her book Arendt describes Eichmann saying, “no sign in him of firm ideological convictions or of specific evil motives.” How can she determine this simply from observations of a case without considering his actual actions? Here, Eichmann is presenting a falser personality to illicit the exact reaction that Arendt seems to be providing (Feger, 2016).

I do not believe that Arendt’s thesis has merit. All human beings have some form of conscious. We all have a perception of right and wrong. As mentioned in the introduction, this sense of evil and good varies from person to person but each person has an idea of what it is. For Arendt to assume that Eichmann was clueless or had no conscious I believe is disingenuous. Arendt uses Eichmanns demeanor and humdrum existence as a proxy for evil which I believe is inaccurate. Here, Arendt is too heavily focused on who Eichmann was as a person as oppose to his actual actions during his time in the Nazi party. For example, prior to the trial both Eichmann and many of his associated attempted to destroy evidence related to their case. This shows that Eichmann had concerns about his actions and how they would be perceived in a court of law. This further indicates that Eichmann was also aware of his evil activities and was thus looking to alter society’s ability to make a judgment on the merits of his behaviors. Instead of using the Eichmann case as a way forward to advance the tradition’s understanding of radical evil, Arendt decided that his evil was banal. Here is where I disagree with her assessment. Banal is defined as “lacking originality and boring.” Arendt appears to be referring to the Eichmann’s personality and behavior in a very limited court setting. By using this term, and not separating his deeds from his personality, she is ignoring deeper issues. For one, Arendt argues Eichmann’s actions are a result of bureaucratic emptiness suggests no other diabolical influences, but only prosaic careerism and the “inability to think” (Burdman,2016)’

In my opinion, I do believe the idea of a person who is not evil committing an evil act, but on a limited basis. A person may be involved in an evil act due to frustration, society pressures, or simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In America, we saw a police officer, in broad daylight, kneel on the neck of unarmed African American man for 8 minutes and 46 seconds until he died. The officer who committed the act was accompanied by three other officers. While the African American man was being strangled to death, all three officers did nothing. The act itself is universally regarded as evil, but none of the other officers in the area did anything to address the evil act that was occurring directly in their view. These officers, much like Eichmann were simply thoughtless and disengaged their minds from the evil act that was occurring. This does not mean that must abdicate their responsibility to help others. Much like Eichmann, the officers in this case must exercise their judgment tot help their follow man. By not doing so, they can be just as evil as the person committing the act. The distinction between the above example possible not being evil, and the below example being evil pertains to the time involved. I regard Eichmann as evil as he stayed in his position in the Nazi party for years and did nothing to stop, obfuscate or help anybody. He did not leave the Nazi party or resign as a means of protesting. Although admitted he himself might have died to help Jews, he did nothing over the years. Through his inactivity he should be regarded as evil. Unfortunately, even in modern society these activities constantly occur. Here, people much like Eichmann simply resolve themselves not to get involved in other activities. This could be the result of indifference, a lack of empathy, fear of reprimand, or other reasons. Depending on the severity of the harm to others and the amount of time doing so, are kill elements in determining evil. As a result, I do not believe Arendt’s idea have explanatory power. If they do, they are on a very limited basis.

As it relates to John Dewey, his philosophical approach advocated for a pragmatism. On his view, Dewey believed that inquiry should not be understood as passive observation, but rather as a process which initiates with a check or obstacle to successful human action. This process of checking successful human interaction then leads to active manipulation of the environment to test the hypothesis. Here actions are essential to his view of pragmatism. An individual’s behaviors are thus an indication of their mindset and thought process. These actions are initially formed through market manipulation where an individual observes the positive and negative consequences of behaviors. This runs counter to Arendt’s ideals as Dewey looks to actual behaviors of Eichmann rather than observations of his personality. Here Dewey’s view is more appropriate as a tool for evaluating he actions of Eichmann. Darwin’s theory of natural selection also influenced the views of Dewey and are applicable to Eichmann’s case as well. Natural selection is commonly referred to as the survival of the fittest. In the case of Eichmann his activities may have been motivated by survival. As such, he simply ignored the lives of other Jews as a both a coping mechanism and to ensure the safety of his family. Here, Eichmann may not have agreed with the activity, but once he was in the Nazi system, he maintained the status quo to survive. Using Dewey’s theory, the environment dictated his behavior as he could stay is the relative comfort of the party or risk death by assisting Jews or challenging the Nazi party. Weighing these alternatives, Eichmann elected to continue his work and essentially assist in the murder of millions of other individuals. I believe this explanation is much more plausible than Arendt’s.