Being conscious of its own limited reason, it is possible to imagine a variety of possibilities for morality, and even evil as a depraved virtue lies precisely in the fact that it consciously chooses the non-good things necessary for survival, but after all, evil is not only related to Individuals are free to choose the greater possibility of being forced to act inappropriately. In this way, the simple 'moral sin' of conscious evil is transformed into a much more complex 'religious sin' in order to take total responsibility for what the individual is not immediately responsible for.
Consciousness, here in common with will, indicates that in a state of sanity, a person makes an absolute self-judgment of the objective, and in the same sanity has foreseeability of his own personal responsibility for this. Suicide was once classified by Camus into four types, bounded by serious thought, which, in this context, can be transformed into whether one's suicide is conscious, premeditated, or not. Rising to metaphysical heights, courageous decisions to transcend the void after death. The four types are: conscious suicide, conscious not to commit suicide, not conscious suicide, and not conscious not to commit suicide. Suicide, a possibility for X, is here replaced by evil. As the bearer of the highest level of evil that determines the opposite of human nature, the bearer of its ethical responsibility is related to consciousness, or to the unconscious, or in Arendt's language, to the ability to think human, or on the contrary, to not have the ability to think Therefore, they do not have the thinking ability to judge right and wrong, good and evil, beauty and ugliness. Arendt's "The Banality of Evils" argues that "the most extreme evils in this world are actually committed by unknown people. Those who are committed by people who have no motive, no thought, no vicious character or evil thoughts. Evil, these people refuse to allow themselves to be human with personality. I call such a manifestation here 'banal evil.'" The suspicion of defending the Nazis had put Arendt in a difficult position, and she has studied evil all her life. , and can not let go until death. The time to judge evil shows how difficult it is to be evil, when human beings face the void of human experience, when human beings begin to try a case without reference, when the first person writes the first decision on the first constitution on the first constitution. The word of evil cannot be said to be the price of heroes, but at least it can be admitted that the seeds of disaster were planted at the same time. Whether a person is unconsciously evil or a person is consciously evil, which one is closer to true evil is more intolerable to human beings. Eichmann, the Nazi commander who was unconsciously evil and sent millions of Jews into the car to kill them all, declared on the scene with a blank face that he was only obeying the order, absolutely loyal to the military order, and was only responsible for the military order, only for the individual Be responsible for behavior, not for humanity as a whole. I believe that normal people can no longer tolerate these words when they see it, because it does seem to be a typical conscience. From this, the responsibility of evil is pushed to ethics: this is a murderer who has no morals, no feelings, no love, his evil is due to a lack of morality, elevating this ethical criticism to the highest level, so to speak, his evil It is because of the lack of morality that he is no longer a person. The lack of morality makes him lose his qualifications to be a human being and become a beast. Arendt's point of view is very enlightening, she believes that inheritance It is not morality that blames Eichmann for evil, although this judgment is very simple and effective, and it is very pleasing. Arendt did not, as he accuses, be far away from history and politics, thus giving German intellectuals or philosophers a reputation for being arrogant and utopian and cold-blooded. Although this temperament is conspicuous, temperament does not equal fact. The fact is that Arendt, like Socrates or Plato, gradually forgets her emotions in her thinking, moves towards a complete state of thinking, and temporarily becomes a person without humanity, and only in this way can she stand on the periphery of humanity and look back. human nature. Arendt proposed that it should not be morality that bears Eichmann's evil, but thinking, consciousness, and the ability to think. If there is no prophet, it cannot be said that it is easy to understand or difficult to understand, because people do not even have the object of understanding, nor the consciousness of understanding. But fortunately, Heidegger's favorite student has long been born, and does not like silence, intelligent and emotionless. Now that the Prophet appears, understanding becomes a matter of logic. Arendt argues, "Since Socrates and Plato, we have generally seen 'thinking' as a silent dialogue between myself and myself. In refusing to be a human being, Eichmann also The ability to be truly human is completely abandoned. This ability is to "think", and therefore he can no longer be moral. The lack of thinking makes many ordinary people allow themselves Perform all kinds of cruel acts, some of which have never been seen before." In short, Eichmann, when he faithfully enforced military orders, decided that this loyalty was not emotional, not the fanaticism of leaders and beliefs that people are used to thinking. Worship, but only a mental impotence. The most terrifying thing happened because Eichmann was not alone, Eichmann symbolized a historical recognition of the past, a misreading of loyalty, or at least a blind affirmation without reflection. There may be doubts here, that is, the debate about the nature of human beings, whether the most fundamental difference between human beings and other living beings is emotion or thought. In the past, many theories supported emotion and believed that love is an ability that only human beings can possess. Loyalty is the extreme of love, the extreme expression of love. However, Arendt revealed that for human beings, whether emotions are more likely to generate inertia, or thinking will generate inertia, whether emotions will stifle judgment in the accumulation of time, or inertial thinking is more common, or in the pursuit of time. , which one of emotion and thought will go to forgetting faster, thus giving birth to the embryo of stupidity. Arendt believes that the lack of thinking, rather than the excess of thinking, is the root cause of evil and should bear the primary responsibility for evil, that is, unconscious evil is more evil than conscious evil, because here In this context, the unconscious has lost the innocent meaning implied in the popular meaning, and has directly reduced its dimension to the low energy of thinking, which is what Arendt called "the banality of evil". This runs counter to common sense and is the complete opposite: the ignorant are innocent. If speaking of ignorance, Eichmann's appearance in court was unprecedented in human history, so ignorant that he personally killed countless lives just to obey military orders. No, without a sense of it, don't try to guess that mediocre people are intentionally mediocre, no, no, they will pay for that mediocrity, just as cows and sheep will eventually be ridden by people or slaughtered. Is this an evolutionary idea? Arendt has yet to mention. But it is very clear that one can see that - the lack of thinking ability makes many ordinary people allow themselves to do all kinds of cruel acts, some even never seen before - many of the terms contained in this view are It is to be demonstrated, such as what is called ordinary (of course, Arendt thinks it is the lack of thinking ability, but she can not represent everyone's views), such as what is called cruelty. However, Eichmann's example, and the huge shaking that caused the world at that time, shows that Arendt insisted on her own opinion, she affirmed that Eichmann was hanged, but refused to use the name of moral judgment, and chose to let consciousness bear evil fundamental responsibility. People can't accept it, and readers can't accept it. In Arendt's view, a massacre was initiated by a group of the most ignorant people, and the smartest Jews were destroyed by robots who would only obey military orders and even themselves against the Jews. Or any group of mediocre people who can execute the order for him to slaughter outright. But the truth is that the whole of human history is indeed more a history of enduring than acceptance. For example, what is called ordinary (of course, Arendt thinks it is the lack of thinking ability, but she cannot represent everyone's views), such as what is called cruelty. However, Eichmann's example, and the huge shaking that caused the world at that time, shows that Arendt insisted on her own opinion, she affirmed that Eichmann was hanged, but refused to use the name of moral judgment, and chose to let consciousness bear evil fundamental responsibility. People can't accept it, and readers can't accept it. In Arendt's view, a massacre was initiated by a group of the most ignorant people, and the smartest Jews were destroyed by robots who would only obey military orders and even themselves against the Jews. Or any group of mediocre people who can execute the order for him to slaughter outright. But the truth is that the whole of human history is indeed more a history of enduring than acceptance. For example, what is called ordinary (of course, Arendt thinks it is the lack of thinking ability, but she cannot represent everyone's views), such as what is called cruelty. However, Eichmann's example, and the huge shaking that caused the world at that time, shows that Arendt insisted on her own opinion, she affirmed that Eichmann was hanged, but refused to use the name of moral judgment, and chose to let consciousness bear evil fundamental responsibility. People can't accept it, and readers can't accept it. In Arendt's view, a massacre was initiated by a group of the most ignorant people, and the smartest Jews were destroyed by robots who would only obey military orders and even themselves against the Jews. Or any group of mediocre people who can execute the order for him to slaughter outright. But the truth is that the whole of human history is indeed more a history of enduring than acceptance.
So what is consciously evil? What did the calm and rational Macbeth do? Eichmann and Macbeth, who is more evil? Unconsciously evil is like a car accident, like a tragedy of fate, Eichmann who was hanged may think he has become a scapegoat for Hitler, although there are millions of people out there who want him to be hanged a thousand times ten thousand times, so that Look, justice is so applied to an ignorant, stupid and incompetent person. It seems too incomprehensible to hate. People's tears, rage and fainting, when they point to the murderer, turned out to be such a dumb animal, and the wise man died at the hands of the fool. Consciously evil isn't a car accident, it's more of a well-planned one. Both evils lead to the same result, which is destruction, but why? How far is unconscious evil from conscious evil. In the end, as Heathcliff walks in the dark, damp moor, it is seen that fiction and reality, reality and all carnage in history share a strikingly the same template: conscious evil Has a huge army of unconscious evildoers. But this just goes to the other side of the problem, rather than solving the problem - not morality, but consciousness should be primarily responsible for evil, and further, whether it is unconscious evil or conscious evil is closer to pure real evil - — rather, the question is avoided, or that human nature has not yet developed the proper domain to bear the answer that may be proven.
illustrate
The first paragraph is quoted from Zhang Zhiyang's "The Door: The Record of a Person Who Came In Without His Door"
All other quotes are from the movie Hannah Arendt
In addition, there is no theoretical point of reference
All personal assumptions
read carefully
View more about Hannah Arendt reviews
