Hacker News Books

> The evil of legitimizing immoral actions is that they become what is, within that context, justice.

Yes, that's a very important point to learn from at least the 20th century, I'd say. I you haven't already, read Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem".

Anyone interested in this story might also be interested in Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (famous for its "banality of evil" thesis). She regarded his trial as nothing more than a show, a kangaroo court, meant to act as catharsis for the Jewish people and a world looking for a figurehead to blame.

This reminds me of (the somewhat controversial) Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. She was the one who coined the phrase the "banality of evil". The coldness and lack of emotion present is not unlike how Arendt was describing Eichmann.

It seems she was criticized for not showing enough sympathy and or seemingly dismissing the evilness of Eichmann. But in a way the opposite even more scary. That he was not mentally ill, and rabidly antisemitic, but rather stupid and ordinary. Not unlike many authoritarian followers plugged into a large bureaucratic system. He would have ascended just as successfully up the ladder in Stalin's bureaucratic machine or Pol Pot's.

Spot on. To quote Marshall Rosenberg quoting Hannah Arendt:

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, which documents the war crimes trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt quotes Eichmann saying that he and his fellow officers had their own name for the responsibility-denying language they used. They called it Amtssprache, loosely translated into English as “office talk” or “bureaucratese.” For example, if asked why they took a certain action, the response would be, “I had to.” If asked why they “had to,” the answer would be, “Superiors’ orders.” “Company policy.” “It was the law.”

From Nonviolent Communication, page 19 on “Denial of Responsibility”.

Sad to see there's a lot of office talk being used in this thread.

I recommend reading Hannah Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem". Arendt discusses this very issue WRT Nazis in WW2 -- in most cases, the systems are structured in such a way that there isn't an evil overlord making those decisions.

Even amongst the Nazis, most high level people had compartmentalized knowledge that was only evil when combined. Indeed, the subtitle and thesis of the book reflects that: "on the banality of evil."

Her theory is that unethical organizations can structure themselves in such a way that almost nobody is actively breaking the law.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to say "Yes, company X did a lot of things well (Y, Z, AA) but could have improved in sectors AB, AC, AD." Actually, I do understand why -- you may be risk averse, and the fear of losing your job or rocking the boat precludes you from making a critique even if other people get hurt. Maybe in part because you too have mouths to feed and folks who will get hurt if you do so. So you downvote and make up excuses for it. After all, that's easier than addressing the cognitive dissonance, no?

It's understandable, but I still can't agree that it leaves you without some amount of ethical culpability. Maybe significantly less than an executive. But still, some. It's more understandable for roles that don't have as strong a position in the labor market as engineers, but I find it a little bit less so for myself, as someone who works in engineering.

I think you (and anyone else downvoting) should read Eichmann in Jerusalem [1]. It's about this exact ethical quandary. I would hope it would change your opinion on these things, but if it doesn't, agree to disagree. And certainly don't expect any sympathy from me or the rest of society.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

"Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Hannah Arendt

I encourage others to read that review of Bettina Stangneth's "Eichmann Before Jerusalem". Again: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/books/book-portrays-eichma.... It does contradict Arendt's thesis, and does so with comprehensive grounding in source material that had been unexamined.

Arendt's thesis is that Eichmann was banal -- that is so lacking in originality and boring -- in his evil, that he was an unthinking functionary just following orders. This is not what Eichmann's memoirs and interviews from his time in Argentina (after World War II, before Jerusalem) convey. He contemplated and dismissed the philosophy of Kant. He participated in weekly book clubs and laid groundwork for Holocaust deniers. He spoke of his genocidal role as a "duty to our blood".

This is not the talk of a man who was just following orders.