Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

24/7 Support


Assignment Help

ILS 4190-Week 6 Analytical Journal: The Banality of Evil

Jul 24, 2023

Week 6 Analytical Journal: The Banality of Evil

This week introduced us to the now-famous concept of “the banality of evil,” which Arendt coined when she introduced and examined it in Eichmann in Jerusalem, and the Milgram experiment on authority. Consider the following quotations:

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists”

“It is indeed my opinion now that evil is never ‘radical,’ that it is only extreme, and that it possesses neither depth nor any demonic dimension. It can overgrow and lay waste in the whole world precisely because it spreads like a fungus on the surface. It is ‘thought-defying,’ as I said, because thought tries to reach some depth, to go to the roots, and the moment it concerns itself with evil, it is frustrated because there is nothing. That is its ‘banality.’ Only the good has depth and can be radical.”

One of her critics summed up one of her significant contributions in the following words:

“Arendt’s insight into the banality of evil remains undiminished: human character is malleable, not fixed; in the right circumstances masses of otherwise ordinary, decent, law-abiding people can be transformed into collaborators and perpetrators of reprehensible crimes against humanity.”

Consider these quotations as well as the results of Milgram’s experiment. What does the work of Arendt and Milgram contribute to the body of knowledge about evil?

As always, journals should be between 2 to 4 pages double-spaced in length, and supported with paraphrases and/or brief direct quotations from the critical articles.

Week 6 Analytical Journal: Consequences of Addiction Viewed as Evil

Here, in this journal, I would like to depict the characterization of Hannah Arendt. Thus, I would like to mention the Eichmann Trial. This is like a chance in order to cover the trial of Adolf Eichmann, based on the responsibility based on the detention as well as on the transportation that concerned the Jew’s campaign. Thus, it was like her last opportunity, when she wrote about the Nazi officials. Therefore, her essays about the trial appeared in The New Yorker. This was like the tool that became one of the most controversial books of the 20th century in order to publish the article from Hannah Arendt: Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. This article mainly deals with the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who is a Nazi SS officer, who has been coordinating the logistics to transport millions of European Jews, and the reason for their death during the Second World War (Maier et al. p. 99).

She even mentioned the Nazi criminals who had filled hate, with an anti-Semitic monster based on the bureaucrats, where they can speak openly. This is the place that is convicted to be based on the roles that are played by the Jewish councils while the deportation and destruction of the people. The central idea of “banality of evil”, is based on the crimes that arise from mindless conformity through a thoughtlessness based on humanity, which is compared with the criticism claimed by Israel with an insensitivity based on the legitimate Palestinian claims, and even mentioned the right to the minorities and neighbors.

Arendt argues that Eichmann can never be a monster. She boldly discloses that she was struck immensely with Eichmann’s crime while based on the ordinariness to that of a man. Thus, it is based on killings out the malice. Thus, she interpreted a man, who is responsible for transporting millions of Jews. Apart from this, the Jews have eventually mentioned the death rates that insist the Zionists who seek information based on the Zionist, as they seek understanding from his Jewish while making interrogations in Israel. In her “Banality of Evil”, Arendt saw Eichmann became a mass murderer who simply spread hatred among all (Maier et al. p 105). Apparently, she boldly discloses her opinion that he never murders anyone as he initially resists his physical killing of the Jews. Thus, Adolf Eichmann says that he is fervent as he declares himself to be dedicated to the Nazi Movement.

Is compared with the research by Milgram, who was accused of fraudulent research practices. Thus, Arendt even mentioned boldly about the political world, and the danger one has to face in politics. On the other hand, I would like to mention that Milgram attempts to fine-tune the political outcomes with his experiment with all scientific inquiries, on a blatant manipulation. On the other hand, Milgram, mentioned the massacre of millions of men and women, along with children which were eventually penetrated by the Nazi party (Imhoff et al. p 920). Milgram mentioned how ordinary people were courteous and led a decent life and they had to face inhumanity. In this contrast, Arendt mentioned in his memorandum in order to distribute by the Anti-Defamation League learned about its members.

Alternatively, Arendt’s defamatory conception is mainly based on Jewish participation based on the Nazi Holocaust. She cries out loudly about the heinous person, who has the authoritarian power to do mass killing. The holocaust took place during the Second World War, which covered so many evil ends, with genocide, where the European Jews have been developing massive murder and faced interruption due to inhumanity. Therefore, Nazi Germany has been collaborating in a systematic murder of six million Jews across German, who occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish Population.

Work Cited ABOUT HANNAH ARENDT 2020. [Accessed on 6th December, 2021]

Imhoff, Roland, et al. “Explaining the inexplicable: Differences in attributions for the Holocaust in Germany, Israel, and Poland.” Political Psychology 38.6 (2017): 907-924. [ [Accessed on 6th December, 2021]

Maier-Katkin, Daniel, and Nathan Stoltzfuss. “Eichmann in Jerusalem.” (2013): 98-103.

Stuck on Any Question

Our best expert will help you with the answer of your question with best explanation.