The philosophy thread general discussion

Right. So it's a lot more narrow than I thought, I take it? Just anecdotally I've seen the concept of the banality of evil cited in contexts far removed from the original premise specifically dealing with war criminals (I didn't take enough note of them at the time to name a specific example) so that might be where my misunderstanding is coming from.

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jun 24th 2023 at 7:19:58 PM

One could argue that the people who knowingly buy from sweatshops even though they could afford otherwise but claim to be anti-sweatshop are indeed acting with a degree of malice. They know they're making a moral compromise, but they don't want to admit it since it conflicts with their self-image as a good person.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 2:19:22 AM

You could, yeah. (Sorry, I can't really think of anything else to add atm. I've basically just gotten out of bed)

Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Jun 24th 2023 at 7:43:09 PM

With the Nazi regime in particular, I would pin their ability to do evil on the following things:

• Selection: I mean, if you're in the position that the Nazis were, you don't have to hire Hans the Baker to operate your death camp, you can select for murderous tendencies.

• The popularization of conspiracy theories: The Nazis were essentially Q Anon. All the things that apply to crazy conspiracy theorists apply to Nazism.

• Psychology of hate: There's a little switch in your noodle which can cause you to feel a strong antipathy to someone else despite having no specific quarrel with them, even if you don't hate them on an intellectual level. Someone with a finger on that switch, well, they can make you do all sorts of things.

• Mob mentality: Humans are social animals and when everyone has that angry vibe, you might too.

Another thing to consider with Nazism is that they were primarily trying to kill people, making a profit was just a bonus. They really believed that murdering the Jews was the morally right thing to do.

Likewise, while we think of the Nazis as being machine-like, it's an ideology deeply rooted in emotion, romanticism, and culture. They're bloodthristy fanatics, not apathetic businessmen.

Which some would argue that portraying them realistically would make them "cartoonishly evil", unless most are in a phase where such depictions can work if executed right.

The thing about evil and satire is that satire sometimes just can't match the reality.

Tom Clancy once said “The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.” for a reason.

Some people just can't believe people that evil would exist and try to rationalize it. Or go the other way around and just keep on demonizing evil people to the point where they fail to understand it's their humanity that drives them to evil, or in other words, the human reasons why they would commit atrocities.

Hitler thought he was the good guy for a reason and there were Nazis who genuinely think killing Jews was a good thing.

Delusions and differences in perspectives don't justify objective evil deeds but they do explain why someone would do them.

Edited by RedHunter543 on Jun 26th 2023 at 3:17:38 AM

Perhaps the best way to summarize that is: there is nothing banal about a concentration camp. Evil can be banal, yes, but sometimes it very much isn't.

Hard agree there.

Very much so.

I think the banality of evil is a thing…but it’s a lot more small scale than it’s usually framed to be. The insurance adjuster who doesn’t really realize how much of an impact they’re having on people, the principal who demands everyone teach to the test because they don’t realize how much that can hurt the student, the manager who causes pretty severe mental health problems because they don’t realize how much an unstable schedule hurts people and thinks it’s just what you do.

When I speak of evil, it is usual intentional rather than genuine ignorance. Unless unintentional harm is what you mean. That said, it is definitely "banal evil" in that sense that it does not require you to be fanatical, lack compassion, be greedy or anything else we usually associate with evil.

The question is whether being an evil person is a special category, or whether or not ordinary people can commit great evil. Regardless of whether or not Eichmann was an evil person, millions of Germans actively supported the Nazi regime, and they were not entirely ignorant of what the party wanted to achieve (Jews were being beaten in the streets after all). So is evil in the world the result of the actions of evil people? Or is evil the result of ordinary people going along with something because they wish to fit in and get along? You can claim that great evil is the result of truly evil people leading the masses astray, except when you remember that Hitler was elected. Dictators cannot actually coerce an entire society into abject submission. That's why all of them pay great attention to public support, and engage in massive propaganda efforts to ensure that they keep it. Even if we agree that Eichmann was genuinely evil, what about all the tens of thousands of people who carried out his instructions? The informers who ratted out Jews hiding in their neighbors houses? The company staff who made sure the concentration camp trains ran on time? The people who made the Zykon-B? Would any of that have been possible if the truly evil people had been forced to act alone? How much evil can be laid at the feet of perfectly ordinary human beings?

And the flip side of that is: If evil can be banal, then it could happen over here...

Banality of evil is ultimately just an excuse to avoid thinking badly of people you know when they take part in bad shit. It's one of the reasons we kept making excuses for Trump voters instead of acknowledging that maybe they knew exactly what they were doing when they made Trump President in 2016.

FFS, the only times Trumpists turned on Trump was when he wasn't awful enough for them.

Banality of evil ignores that ordinary people can commit evil due to evil motivations.

And you could make an argument that ordinary people deciding to ignore their morals just to fit in is pretty damn evil. Wanting to be part of the cool kids' club is no excuse to lynch people.

If nobody was forcing them to do that, then yes that's pretty damn evil. And not banal at all. They sent their neighbors to the death camps to suck up to the regime.

I'd argue that's more evil than Eichmann in a way. What kind of a human being sells out people they've probably known for years, including children, to the Nazis? Not a good one.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:11:26 PM

I thought that was what it meant. Anyway, if millions of ordinary human beings can have evil intentions, then the implication is that pretty much everyone has evil intentions, at least some of the time. This, in turn, has implications for what you can do about evil (ie, "defeating it" in some sort of confrontational action would seem a short term solution only).

That's not what it means! Banality of evil was meant to suggest that people can perform evil without any evil intentions — they just act like literal cogs in a machine.

And yes, of course everyone has evil intentions at least some of the time! Nobody's a perfect saint. The main thing is that we all have a choice of whether to act on the proverbial shoulder devil's suggestions.

And no shit you can never truly decisively defeat evil. It's an ongoing struggle both within and without. We've all got inner demons we'll never truly overcome and have to live with for the rest of our lives.

Edit:

Another point is that even if the "cog in a machine" thing was valid, that just means that the person is a different kind of monster. What else could you call someone who deliberately ignores their conscience to get a paycheck? There's not much difference in awfulness between someone who wants to hurt people and someone who just plain doesn't care that they hurt people.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:17:18 PM

Well now, let's parse that. If everyone is evil, then evil is normal, and normal can be said to be banal, that is "commonplace and predictable." Of course, we also know that people can be good, so good is normal too. If good and evil are normal and part of everyone, then that implies that the choice between good and evil isn't really a matter of individual conscience, because people are both evil and good and there isn't anything inside them pushing them more toward good than evil. Supporting great evil (or great good) would have to come from something outside themselves, like institutional incentives. If evil and good are more the result of institutional level incentives and structures, then attempting to resist evil and promote good by relying primarily on individual conscience may be a waste of time.

One can agree or disagree with this interpretation, but it isn't obviously wrong or incoherent.

"What else could you call someone who deliberately ignores their conscience to get a paycheck?"

"Normal."

Edited by DeMarquis on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:18:23 AM

Again, that is not what the Banality of Evil is. It was an attempt to claim that people can do evil without being evil.

Which is pretty horseshit.

Most jobs don't require you to make the kind of moral compromise that, say, aiding a genocide or slave trade would require.

I think a lot of us deep down need to believe that banality of evil is a thing. Because we want to believe that most people are actually good and are simply misled into taking part in evil by a few bad actors.

But no. A lot of people don't need someone to lead them into evil. They just need someone to give them an excuse.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:24:02 PM

Actually, there are those who argue that anyone functioning within a capitalist economy is in fact facilitating such, but that isn't the question. The question is, what percentage of human beings would cooperate in killing someone who clearly didn't do anything to deserve it, simply because an authority figure told them to?

We know that number, actually.

"I think a lot of us deep down need to believe that banality of evil is a thing. Because we want to believe that most people are actually good and are simply misled into taking part in evil by a few bad actors."

I'm arguing the exact opposite, actually, that ordinary people are evil inside and don't need much in the way of misleading...

Edited by DeMarquis on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:25:31 AM

No, I already pointed out why "no ethical consumption under capitalism" isn't an argument for that. I'm not going to explain it again.

As for the second part, that's the opposite of what the Banality of Evil claims.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:26:13 PM

Is there ethical homicide under fascism? These aren't black and white categories, dude. Responsibility for evil isn't a binary, you can be partially responsible even if you don't seem to have much choice.

The point is that Banality of Evil actually claims the exact opposite of what you've been claiming it is. Banality of Evil suggests that people do not need evil motivations to commit evil. It's based on Arendt falling for Eichmann's attempt to present himself as someone who was bland and boring and just didn't think much about committing genocide. When the truth was that he was someone who was very much on board with committing genocide.

Edit:

"No ethical consumption under capitalism" meanwhile is simply meant to excuse people who can't afford more ethically-sourced goods for their purchasing decisions.

Edited by M84 on Jun 25th 2023 at 10:31:02 PM

Not talking about Hannah Arendt book, but People can indeed commit evil acts due to ignorance or stupidity without malice.

Though for the victims, the difference is academic.

That's beside the point. Ignorance is a valid excuse if you genuinely have no means to educate yourself.

But then again, a lot of ignorance is willful.

Yeah, uh, no ethical consumption under capitalism has literally nothing to do with the banality of evil. It’s the idea that even if you know that the thing you need to live was made using unethical methods, it’s excusable if you don’t have access to any other options. It’s why attacking a poor person for shopping at a Walmart or a dollar store is such a horrible thing to do, because they don’t really have any other choice.

Trying to conflate the two is a pretty good indicator that the person doing that actually doesn’t understand the banality of evil argument at all. And possibly doesn’t understand the ethical consumption one. They’re totally unrelated and are, in fact, completely opposite.

If anyone insists on acting like turning in people in Nazi Germany was the same, many people didn’t turn anyone in. A lot of them probably didn’t know if they knew anyone who was a target, but many of them knew people who were potential targets and refused to say anything. There was a legitimate alternative choice. Telling a poor person they should starve to death because they can’t afford ethical purchases is different from saying that people in Nazi Germany had no choice but to turn people in, because the former don’t have a choice, the latter did.

Edited by Zendervai on Jun 25th 2023 at 11:08:56 AM

Yeah, not all of us can afford to shop at Walgreen's and buy kale and asparagus water. I'm not about to condemn someone who makes minimum wage for shopping at Walmart regardless of how awful the Waltons are.