The concept of evil in philosophy and religion is subject to a lively debate. In general, the concept of evil is explained by the strict contrast between good and evil. Augustine's concept of evil lies in a lack of goodness. Augustine did not thought that the evil exists by itself. Augustine says th...
The concept of evil in philosophy and religion is subject to a lively debate. In general, the concept of evil is explained by the strict contrast between good and evil. Augustine's concept of evil lies in a lack of goodness. Augustine did not thought that the evil exists by itself. Augustine says that a being escapes from the order of God and becomes evil. Kant’s notion of evil tells us that humans have a ‘Herzensänderung’ of evil and do evil. Human beings must choose the temperament of goodness, but they would often choose evil temperament and do evil because of free will. Kant speaks of the conversion as a way to overcome the evil. He saw that human beings can be reborn through conversion.
On the other hand, Arendt refers to different concepts of evil. She speaks of the evil in politics. Arendt observed Adolf Eichmann, a criminal in the World War II, who cause her to use the notion of the concept of banality of evil for the first time. According to her, the concept of the banality of evil results from the inability to speak and think from the aspect of others. In other words, Arendt says that the lack of political ability, namely inablity to think from the aspect of others finally result in doing evil as Eichmann. She uses the Kantian concept of judgment to overcome the evil that comes from political inability. Judgment makes it possible to think an object beyond the restricted subjective judgment and from the position of others. In other words, judgment is the ability to judge an object by a universal point of view. This solution to overcome the political inablity has also a political meaning in Arendt’s sense.
However, we should take into account that there is not only the poltical, but also the moral aspect of the evil. In this point, Arendt’s concept of evil shows –so my thesis- a limit and insufficience. Actually, Eichmann was unable to sympathize with the Jew and did not have the ability to make moral judgments about his actions. He was just like a machine and just faithful to command, but he did not think in the eyes of the Jew. In this regard, the banality of evil should also include the moral aspect of the evil. Of course, the moral problem of Eichmann might be a personal matter, but at the same time it is closely related to the policies of the Nazi regime. Due to the Nazi’s racism policy based on the hatred and contempt to Jew, he was morally indifferent to the pain of Jews and his evil action against it.
Thus, the ‘banality of evil’ should be understood not only from the political, but also from the moral point of view. It comes not only from an individual's political inability, but also from the lack of morality. The lack of morality makes us to be unable to sympathize with others and to leave them isolated in the world. In order to coexist with others harmoniously in the world and to have a good political ability in Arendt’s sense, morality, more exactly, moral sensitivity such as the ability of sympathy or empathy is –so my argument- preferentially and necessarily required. So we could say that Arendt’s notion of the banality of evil could be rightly explained through reconciling and including both of them, namely the viewpoint of politics and the one of morality. And the true solution to overcome the banality of evil would be also found in this perspective.
The concept of evil in philosophy and religion is subject to a lively debate. In general, the concept of evil is explained by the strict contrast between good and evil. Augustine's concept of evil lies in a lack of goodness. Augustine did not thought that the evil exists by itself. Augustine says that a being escapes from the order of God and becomes evil. Kant’s notion of evil tells us that humans have a ‘Herzensänderung’ of evil and do evil. Human beings must choose the temperament of goodness, but they would often choose evil temperament and do evil because of free will. Kant speaks of the conversion as a way to overcome the evil. He saw that human beings can be reborn through conversion.
On the other hand, Arendt refers to different concepts of evil. She speaks of the evil in politics. Arendt observed Adolf Eichmann, a criminal in the World War II, who cause her to use the notion of the concept of banality of evil for the first time. According to her, the concept of the banality of evil results from the inability to speak and think from the aspect of others. In other words, Arendt says that the lack of political ability, namely inablity to think from the aspect of others finally result in doing evil as Eichmann. She uses the Kantian concept of judgment to overcome the evil that comes from political inability. Judgment makes it possible to think an object beyond the restricted subjective judgment and from the position of others. In other words, judgment is the ability to judge an object by a universal point of view. This solution to overcome the political inablity has also a political meaning in Arendt’s sense.
However, we should take into account that there is not only the poltical, but also the moral aspect of the evil. In this point, Arendt’s concept of evil shows –so my thesis- a limit and insufficience. Actually, Eichmann was unable to sympathize with the Jew and did not have the ability to make moral judgments about his actions. He was just like a machine and just faithful to command, but he did not think in the eyes of the Jew. In this regard, the banality of evil should also include the moral aspect of the evil. Of course, the moral problem of Eichmann might be a personal matter, but at the same time it is closely related to the policies of the Nazi regime. Due to the Nazi’s racism policy based on the hatred and contempt to Jew, he was morally indifferent to the pain of Jews and his evil action against it.
Thus, the ‘banality of evil’ should be understood not only from the political, but also from the moral point of view. It comes not only from an individual's political inability, but also from the lack of morality. The lack of morality makes us to be unable to sympathize with others and to leave them isolated in the world. In order to coexist with others harmoniously in the world and to have a good political ability in Arendt’s sense, morality, more exactly, moral sensitivity such as the ability of sympathy or empathy is –so my argument- preferentially and necessarily required. So we could say that Arendt’s notion of the banality of evil could be rightly explained through reconciling and including both of them, namely the viewpoint of politics and the one of morality. And the true solution to overcome the banality of evil would be also found in this perspective.
주제어
#악의 평범성 도덕 정치
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.