Bauman believed that modern civilization created a possible environment for the Holocaust from the social system, and the reason was rationality and bureaucracy; Hannah Arendt, who was exiled from Germany to the United States, analyzed the Holocaust from a personal perspective massacre. She created a concept: the banality of evil.

Arendt’s "The banality of evil is not a screw theory", the so-called ordinary people are just a screw or a cog in a certain bureaucratic system. They just obey the procedures and execute the orders, so they become killing machines indifferently. Part of it; it is not evil caused by the masses, such as the bystander effect; to understand banal evil, you need to understand extreme evil at the same time.

Arendt’s banal evil refers to an extraordinary kind. Shallowness, an incredible and very real loss of the ability to think. This "banality" is essentially a state of "thoughtlessness", which is the uniqueness of the banality of evil. /p>

Extreme evil refers to extremes in nature, because the Nazi Holocaust presents a unique and unprecedented feature, that is, it is "completely incomprehensible". Kant said that "man is an end, and not only." "Merely a means." If you regard others only as a means to achieve your own interests, it tramples on human dignity and is immoral. The shocking thing about the Nazi Holocaust is that not only did the Nazis not regard the Jews as The purpose is not to regard them as tools or means.

"Extreme evil" and "banal evil" are actually two sides of the same coin. The Nazi Holocaust was an extreme evil. This kind of extreme evil is committed by some "mediocre" criminals. The essence of this "banality of evil" in these criminals is that they have lost the ability to think.

Arendt came to this conclusion after studying the then Nazi leader Eichmann. At that time, Eichmann spoke eloquently in court and even quoted Kant's famous saying to defend himself. He said that he was fulfilling his duties and obeying the law. , because in the German Third Reich, "the orders of the head of state are the absolute core of the current law", so he not only obeys the law, but also unifies his will with the "principles behind the law". This is in line with Kant's philosophy. /p>

Arendt believed that Eichmann was full of clichés and let himself fall into clichés. He used these clichés as his own shields and weapons, using them to resist reality and refuse real thinking and thinking. Dialogue.

This kind of banal evil is very similar to how many of us are inspired by media emotions. The thinking ability Arendt mentioned is actually the ability to think actively and obtain independent judgment. We rely on this Only with the quality of thinking can we get rid of cliches and clichés and make our own judgments about right and wrong.

So how can we avoid this banal evil? Arendt argued that traditional moral laws and education can no longer promote it. Real moral thinking. The true meaning of morality is not to follow the rules, but to make your own independent judgment of right and wrong.

But the problem is that "independence" does not mean "correctness". You can follow it, but if you want to make independent judgments, you have to abandon obedience to established rules, establish your own standards, and legislate for yourself, and the risks are too great because there are no standards.

And we have no standards. How should we achieve independent judgment? The advice given by Arendt is to learn from Socrates and always live a life of self-reflection and constantly dialogue with one's own heart. Because such people can face themselves calmly, do not use rules and clichés to deceive themselves, and preserve the integrity of their personality.

Arendt’s inspiration:

How many of us have truly thought, rather than following the crowd or inertia. Thinking is painful, Socrates said, and the unexamined life is not worth living. Ask yourself, am I thinking independently? Is it possible to truly look up to the stars and have a moral law in your heart?