The banality of evil: learning about Gaza from Nazi history
Ethics from newspapers
Today in the Hindu, there is a wonderful article The banality of evil: learning about Gaza from Nazi history , the article discusses Hannah Arendt’s idea of the "banality of evil," which she used to describe Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi official responsible for organizing the mass deportation of Jews during the Holocaust. Arendt argued that Eichmann was not a sadistic monster but rather an ordinary bureaucrat who carried out horrific crimes simply by following orders. He claimed he was just doing his job and obeying the law, without questioning whether his actions were morally right or wrong.
Eichmann even tried to justify his actions using Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative, a moral principle that says people should act only in ways that could become universal laws and that they should treat others with respect. But Eichmann misunderstood Kant’s philosophy—instead of using moral reasoning, he blindly followed commands, stripping "duty" of its ethical meaning. Arendt criticized this as "sheer thoughtlessness," showing how evil can spread when people stop thinking critically about their actions.
How the Nuremberg Trials Rejected Eichmann’s Defense
After World War II, the Nuremberg Trials were held to prosecute Nazi leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many of the accused, like Eichmann, argued that they were just "following orders." However, the court rejected this defense, stating that individuals are still responsible for their actions, even if they were ordered to do something. This established an important legal and moral principle: "Just following orders" is not an excuse for committing atrocities.
However, historian Bettina Stangneth later found evidence that Eichmann was not just a passive bureaucrat—he was a committed Nazi who strongly believed in Hitler’s ideology. This challenges Arendt’s idea that Eichmann’s evil came only from thoughtlessness. Instead, it shows that evil can come from both blind obedience and active belief in harmful ideas.
Background: The Nuremberg Trials (1945-1946) prosecuted Nazi leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, rejecting the "just following orders" defense. Establishing individual responsibility, they led to international law developments like the Geneva Conventions, ICC, and Universal Human Rights. They set precedents for war crimes accountability and ethical governance.
Modern Parallels and Warnings
The article also compares these historical events to modern policies, like Donald Trump’s proposal to displace Palestinians from Gaza. His statements suggest that Gaza should be turned into an international city, while its current residents are resettled elsewhere. This kind of thinking—where entire populations are treated as problems to be "solved"—mirrors past instances of mass displacement, such as the Holocaust, British colonial rule, and Soviet purges. It warns that when bureaucracies treat people as numbers instead of human beings, injustice becomes "normal."
Why This Matters
Eichmann’s misuse of Kant’s philosophy shows how ethical ideas can be twisted to justify wrongdoing when stripped of their true meaning. The Nuremberg Trials made it clear that moral responsibility cannot be passed onto a higher authority. People always have a choice, and just because something is legal or ordered doesn’t make it right.
Arendt’s work and the trials remind us that ethical responsibility requires courage and critical thinking. Whether in history or today, ordinary people must question unjust systems rather than blindly obeying them. True moral dignity comes from choosing what is right, even when it is difficult.
Coming soon:
100 Days Strategy for prelims.
Most Important current affairs for prelims 2025
"Cancel Culture or Calculated Controversy? The Dual Realities of the Ranveer Allahbadia Backlash"