“The more these things are discussed, the clearer it becomes, I think that we actually find ourselves here in a position between the devil and the deep sea” (Arendt 25). Hannah Arendt was a German born, American political theorist who wrote about topics ranging from totalitarianism to epistemology. Not only is Arendt famous for her eighteen books and numerous articles, but she is considered one of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. Through further analysis of Arendt’s article “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” I will critique her argument regarding what circumstances we are individually responsible for our actions and why. Arendt is one of the few very fortunate individuals able to attend the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem. Adolf Eichmann was in charge of creating a system in which he developed the most efficient train routes in order to bring the highest amount of Jews to concentration camps. Arendt very …show more content…
Perhaps the main question Arendt does not directly address in her essay follows the idea of when we can choose who is responsible of such a crime as Eichmann planning train routes, and on what basis. At the end of the day, you have a certain standing in the world as an adult human being, along with that brings responsibilities, assumption of moral judgement, a source of dignity, and the idea that all of this stripped from you; can you be in position to simply obey orders. In a courtroom there is no system on trial, no history, or historical trend, no ism, but rather a person (Ardent 27). The American justice system pins the responsibilities for particular acts, and particular crimes on specific individuals. Therefore, I find Adolf Eichmann responsible for his role in the holocaust, and consider Arendt’s argument of Eichmann’s “legal excuse” for the crime his committed to be weak. Consent is yours to give. Choose
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
Simon Wiesenthal: The Nazi Hunter. There are many heroic individuals in history that have shown greatness during a time of suffering, as well as remorse when greatness is needed, but one individual stood out to me above them all. He served as a hero among all he knew and all who knew him. This individual, Simon Wiesenthal, deserves praise for his dedication to his heroic work tracking and prosecuting Nazi war criminals that caused thousands of Jews, Gypsies, Poles and other victims of the Holocaust to suffer and perish. The Life of a Holocaust Victim The effect the Holocaust had on Wiesenthal played a major role in the person he made himself to be.
The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was "not up to it." Despite this offer, most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually became less "squeamish" about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and why people could behave in such a manner.
In this paper I will compare the theories and ideas from both Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France and John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In comparing these two philosophers, I will be paralleling their ideas and my own ideas I will be attributing them towards the modern day whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Political figures, government representatives and philosophy advocates have carefully studied Burke’s and Mill’s writings over hundreds of years to better understand their theories on governmental control in a society. One of, if not the most noteworthy concept in both their famous writings revolved around the concept of governmental control in a society. Both Burke and Mill have their own theories; they also have many convincing opinions that help them to sustain their own individuality. In order to compare their views of governmental control and relate it to Edward Snowden it is imperative to thoroughly examine and understand each of their perspectives on civilization and governmental control in a society.
According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, a Mass of people is a large body of persons in a group. In Chapter 10 of Hannah Arendt’s novel, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt broadly defines the term masses, as well as the mass individual. Before doing this, Arendt clearly distinguishes masses from classes and citizens. As Arendt notes, classes and citizens are part of a nation-state, which essentially represent themselves. Arendt claims that Totalitarianism movements are mass organizations of atomized isolated individuals. In this claim, there are many key features that define Totalitarianism as a political system.
Although Arendt observed murder as a crime legally, she believed that the Eichmann's case posed a moral question, and the answer to it may not have been legally relevant. Arendt tried to comprehend Eichmann's claim that he was only doing his job, and although she may not fully agree, she is the only one trying to understand. "Those who told Eichmann that he could have acted differently simply did not know, or had forgotten, how things had been." She questioned, "how can one load train after train of Jews to send them to extermination camps, with a clear conscience?" Arendt did not try to justify his actions, but she was the only one who tried to understand his perspective.
The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many ways challenged earlier works like Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” which arguably gives a more complex explanation for the motives of the perpetrators placing the emphasis on circumstance and pressure to conform. These differing opinions on why the perpetrators did what they did during the Holocaust have led to them being presented in very different ways by each historian. To contrast this I have chosen to focus on the portrayal of one event both books focus on in detail; the mass shooting of around 1,500 Jews that took place in Jozefow, Poland on July 13th 1942 (Browning:2001:225). This example clearly highlights the way each historian presents the perpetrators in different ways through; the use of language, imagery, stylistic devices and quotations, as a way of backing up their own argument. To do this I will focus on how various aspects of the massacre are portrayed and the way in which this affects the presentation of the per...
Eichmann was a simple man that thought of himself as always being the law-abiding citizen. Eichmann stated in court that he had always tried to abide by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative (Arendt,135). Arendt argues that Eichmann had essentially taken the wrong lesson from Kant. Kant’s moral philosophy is so closely bound up with man’s faculty of judgment, which rules out blind obedience. Knowing this, we learn that Eichmann could not have just been going along with the Nazis without knowing anything that was going on or the consequences. Eichmann had not recognized the ‘golden rule’ and principle of reciprocity implicit in the categorical imperative, but had only understood the concept of one man's actions coinciding with general law. Eichmann attempted to follow the spirit of the laws he carried out, as if the legislator himself would approve. In Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative, the legislator is the moral self and all men are legislators. In other words, we are all taking on the roll of the leader. In Eichmann's formulation, the legislator was Hitler. Eichmann claimed this changed when he was charged with carrying out the Final Solution, at which point Arendt claims "he had ceased to live according to Kantian principles, that he had known it, and that he had consoled himself with the thoughts that he no longer 'was master of ...
In her book, On Violence, Hannah Arendt studies violence as it relates to war, science, power, aggression, and the like. In this paper, I will speak on the topic of violence as it pertains to aggression. I argue that we, as human beings, possess at least a basic level of aggression that is explainable through animalistic research and characteristics. This argument is one that contradicts the overarching ideas of Arendt’s thoughts on the topic. Through an explicative and then disputatious discourse, I hope to bring validity to my viewpoint.
“The Holocaust is the most investigated crime in history, as has often been pointed out in response to deniers. Eichmann may be that crime’s most investigated criminal” (Sells, Michael A.). Adolf Eichmann was one of the head Nazis. He had a lot of authority in enacting what Hitler had told the Nazis to do. He was just about as responsible as Hitler was for killing all of those innocent
The book “1984” by George Orwell is a fictional work that was penned as a discourse on Orwell’s views of what it would be like to live in a totalitarianism society. It is my belief that his views were based on his personal life experiences as he witnessed first hand many of the violent crimes perpetuated by those in positions of authority. Often, these crimes against one segment of society were carried out by other members of the same society in the name of political advancement or at other times out of fear for one’s life. Due to his experiences, Orwell began to write of his hatred of political power and the concept of a totalitarianism society. “1984” serves as a warning to readers of how a government can become abusive when seeking total control of it’s population. Furthermore, it showcases in great detail how a society can allow itself to be controlled through a series of psychological abuses and manipulation of historical information.
(36) The first part of the Morality Lectures 1995, given by Arendt at New School, was published as "Some Questions of Moral Philosophy." In Social Research, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Winter 1994), pp. 739-64. The other three parts remain unpublished as "Some Questions of Moral Philosophy". Morality Lectures 1965, New School for Social Research, Hannah Arendt's Papers, The Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, container 45. We will take the following systematic: 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy I' for the part published and 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy II' for the unpublished one. This quotation is in 'Some Questions of Moral Philosophy II' 024633.
Howe, Irving, and George Orwell. 1984 Revisited Totalitarianism in Our Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
In conclusion, Amery’s book is a testimony of him accepting what has befallen to him. He brings light to what torture was and is now in a world that can be distrustful. That losing one’s faith in the world and humankind is not an easy understanding. He wants the world to know that torture is not just physical; it is also mental and verbal. It is the “first blow” whether that is a word in meanness or punch to the face, torture is the evil that comes from someone who knows nothing good. Torture for the Jews is a way of life now, because it will never leave their memory, it has become a part of them in every way.
Hannah Arendt was one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. After witnessing the atrocities of both World Wars and the worldwide tension during the Cold War, no concepts or theoretical understandings of the crimes and events that occurred were developed, inciting Arendt to comment on political violence. She considers these events to be a failure of politics and tradition. However, On Revolution seeks to provoke revolutionary thought, ideally with society reverting to the opulence of public life and politics as seen in Ancient Greece. Modern warfare echoes that of Roman antiquity, as we begin to see justifications of these conflicts, with rationalisation of violence accepted by society, seeing the amalgamation of violence and politics, as Marx highlights. Therefore, this structural violence must overcome with an overhaul of the political realm, with emphasis on speech, conversation and debate, creating radical upheaval and reform. Arendt emphasises this separation of politics and violence with great conviction, as politics in the modern world has greatly failed humanity as evidenced through the atrocities of the 20th century. This goes against the theories of Marx, who argues that the ruling class’ violence struct...