Philosophy Now Forum

Any thoughts on Eichmann's trial? And the banality of evil? That thoughtless bureaucracy, rule-following, submission to authority, and indifference are objectionable on moral grounds to a very high degree, as much if not more than outright cruelty. I tend to agree, namely that profound stupidity is a crime against mankind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaN7DR8Zj5o

There was nothing unthinking about the Holocaust. Its execution was meticulously planned, and involved massive logistical efforts. And those rules...before they were "followed" they were designed deliberately by other people. Before the authority was "submitted to," it was granted by the populace. And "indifference"? If there was one thing the Holocaust was not it was an expression of "indifference." Hatred of Jews was focused, intentional, deliberate and widespread...that much is quite clear in retrospect.

The Holocaust wasn't "stupid," meaning something done without thought or foolishly: it was perversely cunning, calculated and intentional. And it was done by a nation that at that time was as modern, advanced and educated as any on the planet. Moreover, it was carried out with great precision by some of the best techniques of management available, and to huge effect.

So maybe Arendt wasn't quite right. Banality? Maybe Eichmann himself was a banal little bureaucrat; but what possessed him, what he joined, and what he did were all very far from banal. So while Arendt rightly cautioned us that evil may *appear* banal at times, or that it may happen under the guise of banal activities, we must not take that to imply that it was all accidental, unintentional or unremarkable. And we must not think that no one was to blame for it, or that it does not raise very serious questions for all of us about what is inside us.

Immanuel Can wrote:There was nothing unthinking about the Holocaust. Its execution was meticulously planned, and involved massive logistical efforts. And those rules...before they were "followed" they were designed deliberately by other people. Before the authority was "submitted to," it was granted by the populace. And "indifference"? If there was one thing the Holocaust was not it was an expression of "indifference." Hatred of Jews was focused, intentional, deliberate and widespread...that much is quite clear in retrospect.

I think you're misrepresenting the notion of indifference. Indifference to the suffering of other human beings and an overall rejection of their worth comes first and foremost. After which intentional acts of hatred are preposterously justified and carried out.

Immanuel Can wrote: The Holocaust wasn't "stupid," meaning something done without thought or foolishly: it was perversely cunning, calculated and intentional. And it was done by a nation that at that time was as modern, advanced and educated as any on the planet. Moreover, it was carried out with great precision by some of the best techniques of management available, and to huge effect.

I never said the Holocaust was stupid, and would never refer to it as such. I was referring to Eichmann's particular brand of what might be called evil. An utter refusal to realize his freedom as an autonomous agent, and his constant excuse of dutifully following authority and self-interest, at the unspeakable expense of others. A failure of realization properly termed "stupid."

Immanuel Can wrote:So maybe Arendt wasn't quite right. Banality? Maybe Eichmann himself was a banal little bureaucrat; but what possessed him, what he joined, and what he did were all very far from banal. So while Arendt rightly cautioned us that evil may *appear* banal at times, or that it may happen under the guise of banal activities, we must not take that to imply that it was all accidental, unintentional or unremarkable. And we must not think that no one was to blame for it, or that it does not raise very serious questions for all of us about what is inside us.

I agree with this.

I think you're misrepresenting the notion of indifference.

Just making sure what it was referring to. It was a bit ambiguous, and I just wanted to disambiguate it.

I never said the Holocaust was stupid, and would never refer to it as such. I was referring to Eichmann's particular brand of what might be called evil.

Well, Eichmann certainly wasn't stupid. He knew full well what he was doing, and was very smart about getting it done. And that's important to realize; for it makes us see what he did not as a mistake but as a product of a truly evil frame of mind. And Arendt, rightly understood, pointed this out...that something genuinely evil was at work, but with the unexpected aspect of petty bureaucracy and the veneer of routine business.

If it happened that way once, it can happen again that way. I'm sensing you agree.

Wasnt the holocaust about identity

Immanuel Can wrote: And Arendt, rightly understood, pointed this out...that something genuinely evil was at work, but with the unexpected aspect of petty bureaucracy and the veneer of routine business.

If it happened that way once, it can happen again that way. I'm sensing you agree.

Indeed I do agree with what you're saying. The stupidity I associate with Eichmann is something akin to moral stupidity, and not as in non-intellectual or non-industrious.

It's as though the genuine evil became hidden within a framework of bureaucracy and business. The responsibility was broken up and dispersed so widely that people like Eichmann could actually believe that they bore no personal accountability.

moral stupidity

What an interesting turn of phrase. I agree, I think.

But what can it mean? If someone is "stupid" about auto mechanics, it's because mechanical arrangements already exist, and the person in question is not wise to them, and is making a mess of mechanics -- or of his judgments about mechanics -- as a result. Does that hold?

If so, then to be "morally stupid" -- would it be in the same order? Would it be because specific moral arrangements already exist, and that people ought to be wise to them but are not?

In other words, does the concept "moral stupidity" imply moral objectivism?

Immanuel Can wrote: In other words, does the concept "moral stupidity" imply moral objectivism?

A very important question. And not one I can expound upon with any kind of authority. Context, I think, is a factor and an important consideration when dealing with morality. And there appear to be shortcomings in both utilitarianism and deontological ethics. But I also think that at some point for every individual there is a decision to be made between alternatives. A choice. My own view is that when one's orientation is rightfully moral, that decision(s) is made with an abundant respect both for oneself, others, and the world around. For existence itself. But when the disposition is one of destruction, and arrogance, and ruthlessness, it's a violation against existence. And hostile to any decent notion of morality.

I agree. But I can see that you are indeed inclined to some form of moral objectivism, even if you find it difficult to articulate precisely. I would guess you would probably agree with a statement like, "It is wrong to take existence away from someone else," or perhaps even "It is wrong to destroy gratuitously," or something like that, right?

This would then put us in a difficult dilemma...that of having to say why "taking existence" or "gratuitous destruction" were wrong...and objectively wrong too, not just the contingent so of wrong entailed in offending my or your personal tastes.

unless it is your manifest destiny

-Imp

Hello one and all...

Emmanuel Can wrote:Maybe Eichmann himself was a banal little bureaucrat; but what possessed him, what he joined, and what he did were all very far from banal. So while Arendt rightly cautioned us that evil may *appear* banal at times, or that it may happen under the guise of banal activities, we must not take that to imply that it was all accidental, unintentional or unremarkable. And we must not think that no one was to blame for it, or that it does not raise very serious questions for all of us about what is inside us.

I was reading George Steiner ('Language and Silence: Essays on Language, Literature, and the Inhuman') and he referred to a Nazi who might read Goethe in the evenings after a day spent supervising a death-camp, wake up in the morning and do it all over again. There are two ways to read this. One, the person had somehow reconciled barbarous and inhumane action with higher ideals, or Two that he simply 'turned up the music' to play over the screams, so to speak. That one can manage to reside in a 'beautiful' mental world, an ideal world, as one lumbers through a lower-world, performing duty, acting responsibly.

Emmanuel Can wrote:Well, Eichmann certainly wasn't stupid. He knew full well what he was doing, and was very smart about getting it done. And that's important to realize; for it makes us see what he did not as a mistake but as a product of a truly evil frame of mind. And Arendt, rightly understood, pointed this out...that something genuinely evil was at work, but with the unexpected aspect of petty bureaucracy and the veneer of routine business.

I found some interesting material which, at least to me, seemed to cast light on the inner working of the Nazi mind: Savitri Devi (a talk on her given by Jonathan Bowden) and her book (among numerous books written) called 'The Lightning and the Sun'. She never repented from her nazi philosophy and indeed she honed it in the post-war years. The essence of it was to understand that 'avatars' operate in history and that Adolf Hitler was, in some sense, an avatar and a man acting 'against time' (decadence) as lightning acts in our world. Her philosophy is based on a cyclical notion of history, and the notion that we are now (i.e. the Earth) in a descending cycle. In her view Hitler represented a pure force, a purifying force, an unrelenting and militant force which she equated (again, one some level) with the last avatar of Vishnu: Kalki. This manifestation of Vishnu returns as the 'Destroyer of Foulness', of confusion, of darkness, of ignorance. He is also known as 'Tomorrow's Avatar' and as an aspect of God outside of time but returning in time. So, Savitri Devi renders Hitler as linked to this cosmic process and a sort of brutal clean-up.

• 'Kalki is expected to appear on Earth at the conclusion of the current Kali Yuga; He will come from the sky on a white horse, brandishing a flaming sword with which to destroy the wicked people of the current world, renew creation and bring righteousness back to Earth.' (From some Internet page).

Kalki comes with a sword and there is a rather startling similarity between this vedic vision or fantasy and the Christian apocalyptic vision:

• 'I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war.' (Rev. 19:11)

I do not think that Savitri Devi's mystical and cosmological notions are distinct from the specific vision of Hitler himself. In 'Table Talk' (informal talks over dinner the content of which was carefully noted by stenographers), Hitler speaks casually of the Reich. It was not intended as a destruction of civilisation as it is usually portrayed. It was, in its way, a rational vision for a cultural world and the restoration of civilisation. At least on a superficial level this is how these men's minds worked. The psychological underpinnings ... are still debated.

DesolationRow wrote:The stupidity I associate with Eichmann is something akin to moral stupidity, and not as in non-intellectual or non-industrious.

My researches have led me to something of a 'conclusion' here: The nazi vision was highly rational and worked out in detail. It seemed to allow, or perhaps 'tolerate' is the right word, a tremendous brutality which, when it had established itself, would be modified. But it was not without a 'moral' base, if we were to consider Savitri Devi's philosophical position as being 'sound'. Savitri Devi had also a very complete ecological defence philosophy and believed adamantly in preserving the natural world and its resources. It is mind-bending, I admit, to read her extremely well thought-out interpretation of these events, and it also complicates the notion of assigning 'moral stupidity' to the Nazis.

DesolationRow wrote:But when the disposition is one of destruction, and arrogance, and ruthlessness, it's a violation against existence.

...and yet precisely embodies nature and existence in some senses (excepting that nature cannot be 'arrogant'). My limited take is that most ethical systems, and moral praxes, are considered ethical and moral precisely because they operate counter to 'reality'. It is a disturbing fact that we ourselves, and most of what we have created, have come directly out of destruction and ruthlessness. Conquest of the Americas, Roman conquest of Europe, etc. It always troubles me the fact of how deeply enmeshed we are (if unwillingly) in 'evil'.

Desolation Row.

Thank you, Gustav: that was most interesting and thought-provoking.

Re: Steiner, I remember reading a study done on South American torturers that showed some surprising results...that on the first occasion wherein they were compelled to torture someone, they went through the symptoms we would expect of any morally-aware agent, such as sleeplessness, weeping, shame, and so on. But the second time was less than half as hard, and within just a few repetitions they could completely bifurcate their work lives from the rest of life. They tortured all day, then went home and played with their children, were affectionate to their wives, were good neighbours, and so on...

on a white horse, brandishing a flaming sword with which to destroy the wicked people of the current world, renew creation and bring righteousness back to Earth.' (From some Internet page).Kalki comes with a sword and there is a rather startling similarity between this vedic vision or fantasy and the Christian apocalyptic vision:

It's interesting how universal in world mythology the motif of final judgment is. When something is so general, it's hard not to suppose it is not tapping into something important; especially when version of it spring up in unconnected locations. It's as though everybody knows that this place is messed up, and that if there is anyone in charge of things, the day will have to come when it all gets sorted out.

C.S. Lewis says something very clever on this. He points out that we'd be quite hasty to think that just because a particular tradition was not our own, or just because we disagreed with elements of it and thought they were untrue, we would not be justified to leap to the conclusion there was *no* truth in anything that tradition said. And I think this explains well why some traditions have similar motifs: there are certain truths that are universally known by virtue of us being humans and creations. However shrouded in myth some of these may become, they have a tendency to push through and make a point anyway.

Then I guess the crucial question would become, "What's to be done in light of it?"

Conquest of the Americas, Roman conquest of Europe, etc. It always troubles me the fact of how deeply enmeshed we are (if unwillingly) in 'evil'.

Well, yes: and we must never forget just how advanced Germany was when Eichmann did what the did. It was the leading nation in the world for technology, scholarship, science, philosophy and a cradle of all kinds of theology...and none of that prevented what happened. Not only that, but governments animated by pure secularism would go on in the 20th century to kill more human beings than were killed in all wars in human history combined...over 148 million persons...all on the secular ticket.

It doesn't seem that any ideology is sufficient to prevent our enmeshment with evil. It doesn't seem we can get out of this mess at all. And if, as all cultures seem to know, there is some kind of judgment coming, then "What is to be done?" Becomes again the pressing question.

Thanks again.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: and it also complicates the notion of assigning 'moral stupidity' to the Nazis.

Thanks for the interesting response Gustav.

I'm not especially equipped to make claims about social phenomena such as collective Nazi ideology, the Roman Empire, the conquest of the west, and so on. It's an very good point you raise regarding the tactics involved in the establishment of other empires. However, I don't think moral understanding is easily applied to nations, groups, and movements. Not to say they don't steer in one direction or the other, they clearly do. But in my view, the moral realm is the ethical reality of the individual. And this subjectivity is only the 'reality' that can be qualitatively assessed, morally speaking. This isn't to say that groups, etc. aren't ultimately responsible for carrying out these monumental horrors, as these operations require a collective effort .... but the ethical assessment becomes something different entirely when dealing with crowds or movements, and obviously more complex. But moral agents have freedom and subjectivity, so in my view people like Eichmann can most certainly be deemed morally 'stupid', even if Nazism in general requires a more fleshed-out description.

The trail was illegal and unprecedented.
Israel did not even exist whilst the crimes were committed and thus can have had no jurisdiction.
Eichmann himself was illegally kidnapped and flown to Israel, without formal process.
As for his crimes. He was guilty of moving lists of names from the column on the left to the column on the right; and buying the train tickets to Aushwitz, and Belsen.
He was a working bureaucrat, not an architect of the political process. He was working on the orders of his superiors, and followed his instructions within the laws of the land. In short he was doing what millions of other Germans were doing. He was not special. He was a sad little ****.

The trail marks a significant point in Israel's establishment of their claim to be just like any other tyrannical state, capable is showing no respect for international law.

The proper venue for such a trail has to be under the auspices of the International Community, not a state which was themselves in breach of UN resolutions.

DesolationRow wrote:In fact, I don't believe morality can be extended as a descriptor for nations, groups, or any crowds. In my view, the moral realm is the ethical reality of the individual. And this subjectivity is only 'reality' that can be qualitatively assessed, morally speaking. This isn't to say that groups, etc. aren't responsible for carrying out these monumental horrors, but the ethical assessment becomes something different entirely, and obviously more complex. But moral agents have freedom and subjectivity, so in my view people like Eichmann can most certainly be deemed morally 'stupid', even if Nazism in general requires a more fleshed-out description.

What you say makes sense. The more that I look into ethics, the more that it seems to me that only a very well-prepared individual can make a pure moral choice (in the sense of 'real' or 'true'). If that is so only a few (out of the multitude) can really be held accountable.

Although nations and groups have products and much can be read from their products, one can only really focus-in on the individual---so what you say seems true. Henry Temple, British Prime Minister from 1855-1858 and 1859-1865, said (of Britain): "We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow."

Emmanuel Can wrote:Then I guess the crucial question would become, "What's to be done in light of it?"

Levitation? I think you will understand from other conversations that I tend to see our situation as tragic.

This thread could go in various directions. I know that not everyone has a spare hour to devote to listening to a talk, yet I am curious if you-all were able to listen to Bowden's talk on Savitri Devi? He raised so many interesting points and pointed to many difficult and knotty problems.
_______________________________

Kafka wrote: 'Man schlägt den Juden und erschlägt den Menschen' ('Strike at the Jew, kill Man'). Steiner quotes it in an essay on Kafka: 'K'. It is a statement that sticks, and then grows on one...