Up@dawn 2.0

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

H1G2 Hannah Arendt



Hannah Arendt had some extreme ideas on the contrast of being an evil person or a good person. Arendt believed that a person was evil if they did not act to stop an evil act. Her biggest opinion came from the biggest act of evil of all time: the Holocaust. She spoke out against not only Nazis, but anyone who did not act to stop it. She believed that even though the soldiers were being ordered to do hideous acts, they should of revolted. She also said that Eichmann was just as evil as Hitler for making the trains that transported mass amounts of Jews to the concentration camps. Our group discussed whether or not, if put in a similar situation, we would stand up for what was right. Arendt’s opinions can also be applied to the modern world. The question is raised as to whether or not a person is a part of the problem for not acting to stop an evil act. We also discussed this quandary using bullying as an example.

FQ: Who believed that if a good person doesn't intervene to stop an evil act, they too are evil?
Answer: Arendt

DQ: Is a person just as guilty for not stopping an evil act?

6 comments:

  1. I think that we might not be able to stop all the evils in the world, but it is our charge to do all that we can. Allowing evil to happen is just the same as inflicting it yourself when it boils down to it.

    It is the same thing as "be more than a bystander" http://www.stopbullying.gov/respond/be-more-than-a-bystander/

    What studies have found is that the problem of bullying is not going to be solved by the victim standing up for themselves. It is the bystander that can end bullying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our discussion reminded me of a quote from Elie Wiesel that we read in high school. He said, "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." I think this is very true. By doing nothing, you are actually supporting the one who is doing evil.

    This also reminded me of a study I think we talked about in my psychology class last semester. The study was about the "bystander effect" and found that if a person started choking, someone would be more willing to help if there were not other people around. If it were only the person who was choking and you, you know you're the only one who can help them. If there are a bunch of people around, you may just ignore them expecting that someone else will help them. This may also be because you feel that other people are "more qualified" to help the person than you are. (see below for more info on the bystander effect)
    This is how I think many people feel about issues such as the one Arendt talked about. They think that they are not qualified to stand up, or that if they did, they wouldn't be able to change anything. But does this make it okay to just ignore the person choking? I don't think it is. Even if I am not qualified in CPR, I think it would be the right thing to do to at least try to help.



    "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
    Desmond Tutu

    The Bystander Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect

    ReplyDelete
  3. FQ: Which philosopher came up with the thought experiment about flipping a lever on a runaway train track to save many but kill one? Philippa Foot
    FQ2: Which philosopher came up with the thought experiment about pushing a man onto a runaway train track to save many but kill one? Judith Thomson

    DQ: What do you think about Judith Thomson comparison of abortion & the violinist?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even if he had not overtly revolted against the Nazis, I think Eichmann should have at least subversively opposed them. His approach was to turn a blind eye to the world around him and proceed with his life, but negligence makes him an accessory to the crime of killing thousands when he just ignores that aspect of his life. I think he should have done something along the lines of Oskar Schindler, given Jews a job, protect or shield them in some way, or intentionally but secretly sabotage the railways so that they have to be repaired frequently but not constantly. I am not sure what the best approach would have been, but simply ignoring the deaths of countless victims all in the name of doing one's duty is inexcusable.
    DQ: What is the best possible way to oppose an oppressive regime, excluding overt rebellion and warfare?

    FQ: Who asserted that the "banality of evil" can exist in even the most mundane and seemingly ordinary people? A: Arendt

    Schindler:
    http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/steinhouse.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. So I attempted to post this morning from my phone, but apparently it will not allow me to publish my comments. I basically said that I agree with what Michele said earlier. I believe that it is our responsibility as citizens to stop the spread of bullying. As hard as it may be to stand up against your friends and enemies, it must be done. Our culture could very easily have a new epidemic like the Holocaust simply because we allow it to happen. We must work together as one to stop the spread of bullying as we would not like to be bullied ourselves.

    Emily Ball

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:01 PM CDT

    Sometimes people are blinded by the good that a person does to see the evils they have also done. Such is the case with Hitler who took Germany out of an extreme depression and people followed him almost to a point of idolizing him, so when he gradually started committing the horrors he did it was hard for them not to think of all the good he had done for their country

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.