Cultural Morality. Obedience to authority: Dehumanization as Recognized by Hannah Arendt

Obedience to authority: Dehumanization as Recognized by Hannah Arendt
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Obedience to authority: Dehumanization as Recognized by Hannah Arendt
Introduction
Johanna Cohn Arendt Bluecher, German political philosopher and novelist is a well-known figure in political theory. This prolific political expert, born into a half German, half Jewish family. She grew up partly in Germany, then France and finally the United States where she gained significant recognition in the New York scene. Many of her published works deal with the aspect of authority, the nature of power, democracy and totalitarianism (Luban, 2011). She is best remembered for her perspective on the drive behind the actions of Adolf Eichmann and how individuals can be driven to become puppets in totalitarian regimes. Hannah, as she was known by friends and peers, published ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem’, a book that revealed the life and times of German dictator Adolf Eichmann, one of the chief architects of the Holocaust.
Adolf, who was later hanged for his crimes against humanity, was a high-ranking Nazi official who was technically in the back seat as millions of Jews were killed in the World War II chaos. He evaded capture for many years until his eventual arrest by Israeli Mossad agents in one of their most daring operations to date. It was during his arraignment and subsequent trial that political theorist Hannah Arendt put forward her thoughts. She put forth the hypothesis that in obedience to authority, an average individual can commit extreme anti-social actions like mass murder. After a critical study of psychiatric treatment records and personally examining Adolf, she reached the conclusion that his actions were driven by the orders he was given by superior officials, which led to his merciless killings of millions of Jews in Germany at the time. Hannah further claimed that Adolf was an ordinary individual who acted like the millions of Nazis who were just following orders, without having any prior inclination to hating Jews to the point of orchestrating mass murder (Cesarani, 2010).
These sentiments published in her book did not go down well with Jews and some sections of philosophy scholars. The general consensus in their argument was that Hannah was validating Adolf’s actions, seeking to absolve him while blaming his senior officers for giving him the order the crimes of humanity. Furthermore, her theories and findings suggested that more aggressive means were needed to deter such a terrible crime from happening in the future, rather than show any leniency to a clearly guilty party. In accordance with her views, Hannah rejected the idea that punishing Adolf by death would heal the trauma of those who survived the tragic ordeal. She further argued that it would not deter other anti-Semites from committing similar crimes while following due orders. This mode of thought prompted back by questioning the need to establish the proponents behind Adolf’s actions. The legal argument had no obligation to prove that Adolf was indeed inclined to morbid racial bias, rather the case had to do with the due legal process for punishing the guilty parties involved. She identified that Adolf did not involve his ability ...