The
political theorist Hannah Arendt has an extremely interesting stance on the
idea of human rights. As a German Jew in the early 20th century,
Arendt was well acquainted with anti-Semitism and other atrocities which
occurred during the Holocaust. People were very critical of her views during
the Nuremberg Trials due to the fact that she stated that the crimes that the
Nazi’s committed were banal due to the fact that their actions were accepted,
and she even went on to state that their crimes were simply a failure to think.
Here are some excerpts of Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, and The Origins of Totalitarianism where she argues that traditional
documents like The Declaration of the
Rights of Men which set out a basis for rights have lost their validity and
advocating for human rights only brings attention to their feebleness which can
inadvertently lead to their abuse. Do you think that Arendt’s views on human
rights were reflective on her environment or do you agree with her views on the
discontents of human rights?
I think that Arendt makes an important point with her idea that the Nazi's actions during the Holocaust were more of " a failure to think" than pure "evil". By viewing people who commit heinous acts as monsters too atrocious to be human, we turn them and their actions into a sort of fiction--by classifying them this way, we are separating them from ourselves, and even from the world we live in (what we experience in our daily lives, as opposed to what we see on the news or hear about). Doing so can be harmful because the truth is that people who commit such acts are actually not all that different from us--although something went wrong within them for them to behave in ways that society deems abnormal (in ways that endanger the lives of others), they are human beings with positive qualities, negative qualities, accomplishments, hopes, fears, and personalities. Under this light, it becomes clear that any human being is capable of committing such horrible actions if the circumstances are right.
ReplyDeleteThe play "Columbinus", for example, examines what happened in the lives of the two teenage shooters at Columbine to provoke their inhumane actions. I think that the point of the play is that these two shooters are real people like us, and that anyone is capable of doing what they did--for this reason, we must do something to prevent people from turning to violence. If we say that only monsters are capable of acting that way, we take the responsibility to find a solution away from ourselves and our society...and that is dangerous.
Of course, there is the counterpoint that people who commit these acts of extreme violence are psychologically different from the rest of society. Research has shown differences between the brain structure of individuals prone to aggression and those who are not (from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK55333/ , which contains extended information about Antisocial Personality Disorder).
***I suppose the real question is WHY the people committed the violent acts...Was it because they felt they had no choice? Because they despised the person they were harming? Or because they simply enjoy harming others? The first two explanations do not necessarily indicate that the perpetrator is psychologically abnormal; in fact, giving in to pressure and feeling animosity towards others are basic human flaws.