Moral responsibility for banal evil

Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (4):501–520 (2006)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It has often been argued that Hannah Arendt ‘let off’ Eichmann through her concept of the banality of evil. In this paper I argue, through revisiting and modifying the concept of the banality of evil, that we can reject such criticism. That is, by judging that a perpetrator, like Eichmann, commits evil banally in no way undermines the grounds for holding them to be responsible for their actions, but it does help us to understand why such perpetrators act as they do and to teach us how we might prevent such evil from occurring again.

Other Versions

No versions found

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
4,089 (#3,835)

6 months
428 (#11,437)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Formosa
Macquarie University

Citations of this work

Kant on the radical evil of human nature.Paul Formosa - 2007 - Philosophical Forum 38 (3):221–245.
Kant on the Limits of Human Evil.Paul Formosa - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Research 34:189-214.
Imagined Utopias: Animals Rights and the Moral Imagination.Steve Cooke - 2017 - Journal of Political Philosophy 25 (4):1-18.
Understanding Evil Acts.Paul Formosa - 2007 - Human Studies 30 (2):57-77.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Quotation.Herman Cappelen, Ernest Lepore & Matthew McKeever - forthcoming - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Philosophy and politics.Hannah Arendt - 2004 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 71 (3):427-454.
Some Questions of Moral Philosophy.Hannah Arendt - 1994 - Social Research: An International Quarterly 61 (4):739-764.
Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem.Seyla Benhabib - 2000 - In Dana Richard Villa, The Cambridge companion to Hannah Arendt. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 65--85.

View all 10 references / Add more references