Student Led Discussion Report

Reilly Butler

March 9, 2016

Student Led Discussion Report

Hannah Arendt was born into a family of German Jews and studied philosophy at University of Marburg. Due to the fact that she was born into a Jewish family and lived in Germany, she had a strong opinion when it came to the Adolf Eichmann trial which evolved into Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Before the article mentions the trial and what it contained, the article talks about Arendt’s incomplete reflections on judgment during the trial. The reason people say her reflections are incomplete are based of three sets of claims Arendt made that stand in tension with another. The first claim was her interest in mental activities which came from both her attendance at the Eichmann trial and the fact that she didn’t see evil in metaphysical terms, corruption or sin, she thought Eichmann’s most striking quality was “thoughtlessness” and he later described him as “banality of evil”. Her second claim was more of a question that she brought up quite often, “Is our ability to judge, to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly, dependent upon our faculty of thought?” And her last claim was whether judgment is a branch of practical reason or is in the universes moral principles.

        The author of this article then explains that they will look at Arendt’s meaning and intention of writing Eichmann in Jerusalem. The author says there at three points in the writing that are the most tangled. The first being Arendt’s reporting of the arrest, detention, and trial by the authorities. Second, Arendt’s attempts to come to an understanding with the behavior of German citizens during the Nazi regime. And lastly, the role of the Jewish councils and accusing own people and leaders of being complicitous in the holocaust.

        Arendt’s evaluation of the Jewish council remains the most difficult and earned her rejection from the Jewish community. Her Eichmann book was her most Jewish piece of work and she identifies herself with Jewish people. Eichmann was kidnapped by the Islamic secret service and both Arendt and Karl Jaspers believe this act was illegal and morally wrong. Arendt thinks that the state of Israel had committed a “clear violation of international law in order to bring him to justice”. Eichmann was tried under a retroactive law, similar to the Nuremburg trials, and there were no laws at the time for Eichmann to be tried for. Since the crime was killing Jews and was clearly discrimination along with genocide it was considered a “crime against humanity” and since it could not be held in a Jewish court it needed an international court.

        The biggest parts of inconsistency were what I previously mentioned in the first paragraph. First would be the incomplete reflections on judgment based on the three sets of claims. Another point of contradiction was also previously mentioned when the author talked about the controversy in her book about the Eichmann trial.

Question 1: “Is our ability to judge, to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly, dependent upon our faculty of thought?”

Question 2: Why shouldn’t I murder my grandma right now if I want to?” “What’s wrong with a murderer?