Report Proper:

A. Hannah Arendt (2012) film

I. The Shortest Summary
This film is about how Hannah Arendt understands Adolf Eichmann, the chief
architect and executioner of Hitlers genocidal deportation. She describes
Eichmann by separating him as an individual and a bureaucrat. He was not able
to think as an individual, denying this one human defining quality; hence, making
the judgment to think of his victims suffering impossible. On the other hand, he
was just doing his duty as a bureaucrat under the normal evil of the Nazi period,
vis--vis the banality of evil.
II. Ethical Question:
Is Eichmann not responsible for the death of the Jews who died in the
deportation during the holocaust?
III. The Short Summary
1. Adolf Eichmann's escape from Germany to South America
2. Secret Agents Seized Killer Nazi Abroad and Took Him to Israel.
3. Interests and provokes Hannah Arendt to offer herself to write a report to the
New Yorker about Eichmanns trial in Jerusalem
4. She traveled to Jerusalem, dropped by to visit an old dear professor, but most
importantlyto witness the trial on Adolf Eichmann.
5. After a series of observation, reading manuscripts, and other reportsshe
questioned about how the persecutors like to steal the show and how other
people are wrong about Eichmanns being a monster.
(Note: Monster for killing the Jews in hatred)
6. She soon opens that she has a different understanding about Eichmann. For
her, it was not hatred for the Jews, but duty; hence, one cannot blame him for the
banality of evil at the time.
7. She went back home.
8. She ought to study more, and write her realizations as she has to send these
reports. However, she took time to write with all the thinking and also the
sickness of his husband.
9. Still, she managed to submit the first part to The New Yorker.
10. It didnt earn any good. The New Yorker was bashed with a lot of hurtful
criticisms, mostly directed to Hannah.
11. Hannahs other circle of friends and colleagues turned against her. She
received a lot of hatred notes and death threats.
12. She finally explained her point that she was not defending Eichmann or the
Nazi but understanding him. She was not saying the holocaust is acceptable but
to look at Eichmann. The guy is not really responsible for he was not able to
think. And hence, he should be spared from this trial. His actions should be
viewed separately because the killing of the Jews is his duty.

IV. Analysis:
1. Eichmann: Just following orders
[Male Translator] [In German] But it was you who decided how many people were
to be put into each railway car, no?
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) I had orders. Whether people were killed or not,
orders had to be executed. In line with administrative procedure. I was only
responsible for a small part of this. The other parts that were necessary until one
of these trains rolled out were carried out by another department.

Hannah Arendt: Unable to think: Totalitarianismabsolute evil, no longer relate

to human motives
2. Eichmann: Obliged by oath
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962) [In German] An officer swears an oath of
allegiance. If he breaks this oath, then he is a rogue. I still hold this view. I have
taken an oath here to tell the truth. That was how I viewed things then, too: An
oath is an oath.
[Gideon Hausner (1915-1990)] Do you believe that anyone who swore allegiance
would, after Hitler's death, be released from his oath of allegiance?
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] After Hitler's death? Of course. Everyone would
automatically be released. [Hannah Arendt] [Laughing]
[Gideon Hausner (1915-1990)] When interrogated by the police you said that if
the Fuhrer had told you your father was a traitor, you would have shot him
yourself.
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] If he had been a traitor, yes ...
[Judge] No, if the Fuhrer had told you so. [Man] [Speaking Hebrew]
[Judge] Would you have shot your own father?
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] Assuming he had proven this. Had he proven it, I'd
have been obliged by my oath.
3. Eichmann: Split between conscience and duty; duality

[Judge] Did you never feel any conflict between your duty and your conscience?
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] One could call it a state of being split.
[Judge] Split? [Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] Yes ... A conscious split state where
one could flee from one side to the other.
[Judge] One's conscience was to be abandoned? [Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)]
Sorry? [Judge] One's personal conscience was to be abandoned? [Adolf
Eichmann (1906-1962)] You could say that.
Hannah Arendt:

Separating Eichmann as an officer and as a person

4. Eichmann: Environment, Training on ideological education, and rigid

discipline
[Judge] If there had been more civil courage, things could have been different.
Am I right? Answer ...
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] If civil courage ... had been hierarchically
organized, then yes, absolutely.
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] And of course it was ... It was wartime,
upheaval ... Everyone thought, "It's useless to resist ..."
[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] A drop on a hot stone that evaporates without
purpose or success or ... or failure or anything. to the times, I think. To the times,
how children were raised, with ideological education, rigid discipline, that sort of
thing
Hannah Arendt: Didnt feel guiltyFuhrers orders became the law, whats
right is to follow the law
V.
Our Ethical Analysis:
1. Eichmann is a man who was raised in a position by Hitlers administration.
He is also raised in such a way that is to obey the human law, with a rigid training
(as mentioned).
2. Being raised in such a position is a self-fulfilling opportunity and legally right
(hence, safe).
3. Remember the context of this human law is in HitlersNazi: Kill the Jews
= The hands of Hitler make the human law. It is pointed to killing the Jews.
(Note: As mentioned in the trial, the crime of the Jews is not proven before the
actual deportation and then killings.)
4. However, take note:

a. In our human law, we are not to kill.

b. From human law proceeds the conscience.
Hence:
a. If we look at his responses to the judge about his conscience, we know for the
fact that he has thought of it as something contrary to what should be done.
BUT!
1. He cannot obey this conscience. He has to be an officer at the moment
(duality, split in his person).
We answer: To be human, one has to be in totality. Man has to have unity of life.
For example, you willed something, not only as a student but you willed it as
you, the entire you as you rested your will to choosing a course of a free action,
regardless of other modifiers.
2. He reasoned that he has to obey the law. He just obeyed the human law =
free action [Arendt then is wrong to say that Eichmann was not able to
think,
[Hannah Arendt]
In refusing to be a person, Eichmann utterly surrendered ... that single most defining
human quality: that of being able to think. And consequently, he was no longer capable
of making moral judgments. This inability to think ... created the possibility for many
ordinary men ... to commit evil deeds on a gigantic scale, the like of which one had
never seen before.

here we see he chooses to obey the human law of Hitler].

How? He calms himself to continue what he needs to be done (calming
himself=silenced his conscience deformation of conscience).
However, there is fear involved for the presence of violence (modifiers of
morality).
BUT EVEN IF THERE WAS FEAR AND VIOLENCE, HE WAS ABLE TO
CHOOSE HIS FREE ACTION.
[Adolf Eichmann]
And of course it was ... It was wartime, upheaval ... Everyone thought, "It's
useless to resist ..

VFILMI.SYNTHESIS:
EICHMANNWASABLETOCHOOSEAFREEACTION

EICHMANN
HE WAS ABLE TO THINK

IT WAS JUST AFFECTED IGNORANCE

He is still culpable. Even if there was fear

and violence involved, for Eichmann: to
choose whether or not to deport these
people (who were then killed as they were
gassed) was not threatening at all for there
was no on-the-spot life danger machinery
that would automatically harm his life.

[AdolfEichmann]
Ihadorders.Whetherpeoplewerekilledornot,ordershad
tobeexecuted.Inlinewithadministrativeprocedure.Iwas
onlyresponsibleforasmallpartofthis.Theotherparts
thatwerenecessaryuntiloneofthesetrainsrolledoutwere
carriedoutbyanotherdepartment.[choosestobeignorant
oftheoutcomeofhisyesasthecommander.]

WHY?

Eichmanns goal: Keep his self cool with

the Nazis =avoiding the hassle AND for his
position to be safe (self-fulfillment).

There is indirect voluntariness. It is indirect

because he chose not to know or to believe
what was beyond his duty.
Here we could say that he suffered from affected
ignorance. There was denial of truth. It is impossible for
him to not know the natural law.

[Adolf Eichmann (1906-1962)] I didn't

exterminate them.
These lines could be that he meant not to
exterminate them (his intention) but theres
no other way for Eichmanns goal to be
attained but only through approving the
deportation.

Determinants of morality:
Object: Yes to the Deportation
(PROCESS=KILLING) BAD
Intention: To keep his position, be
safe, hassle-free; SELFISH (take
note: the common good is greater
the individual good) BAD
Circumstance: Not so free; Nazi
period, civil courage is
discouraged attenuating

Contemporary Psychologism: He was aware but he

distanced himself from the truth.

His conscience was deformed, and it was

deformed because he would always try to console
himself that what he was doing was okay because
it was duty. He saw the goodness of following his
duty but not the ends of his act.