Is evil the product of a wrong choice or the result of a lack of moral concept? Hannah Arendt, author of numerous texts including Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, was born in Hanover, Germany. He fled Nazi Germany in 1933 to France and finally moved to the United States in 1941. His literature on the evil deeds of the Nazis and their root causes does not defend their actions; rather, it provokes reflection on how evil deeds are performed. Arendt attempts to use an impartial perspective to demonstrate her belief that the cause of evil is banal and ordinary, which is supported by Adolf Eichmann's reckless and cruel actions. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Actions and orders may have evil implications, but the thought process behind each action or order is ordinary, as if it requires no thought. Evil is a concept that will always be present as long as people have free will. Arendt developed a theory to describe the nature of recklessness based on the Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann and his evil actions. Arendt believes that anyone can commit evil actions without paying much attention to the potential consequences; this shows that these people do not elaborate moral implications and that people can justify their involvement in the acts simply by following orders. Carefree is not necessarily a specific mindset; rather, it is used to describe how an individual makes a choice. For example, Eichmann was tasked with transferring specific groups to concentration camps and ordering their massacre. Arendt claims that she did not want people to be massacred, but only followed her orders so she could advance her personal career. Hannah Arendt argues that all people may have a tendency to ignore moral implications when responding to strong authority. The banality of evil comes from the disconnect between the people who hold power and the population who are afflicted by it. Individuals in power, like Eichmann, pass orders up the chain of command whose repercussions they never personally see, even though they have indirectly imposed this evil. Arendt cites the Milgram Shock experiment which took place in 1961, a year after the trial of war criminal Adolf Eichman. The purpose of the experiment was to study how long the average American persisted in obeying an authority figure during a procedure in which he believed he was administering potentially fatal electric shocks. The Milgram experiment concluded that “ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the point of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in all of us by the way we were raised” (McLeod). Anyone who takes orders from the prefect cannot be considered an accomplice to the crime he was ordered to commit. This shows that many people, when placed in a certain situation, can ignore moral guidelines and continue to follow orders; this exaggerates the reckless nature of evil, a major component of Arendt's thesis. Arendt believes that Eichmann did not necessarily display recklessness throughout his life. He argues that he was not necessarily a fanatical anti-Semite, but rather was pursuing career opportunities when he chose to rise to the top of an extremist regime. In his trial he claimed that he did not like massacres and murder; he was simply concerned with doing his job as efficiently as possible. He didn't try totargeting Jews after the dissolution of the Nazi Party. After his involvement in the Schutzstaffel, he fled Europe to live a simple life working in a factory, until he was captured and executed after the trial. While Eichmann was part of the Nazis, he proposed a plan to send the Jews to Madagascar rather than kill them. This account is detailed in the text “When, a year later, the Madagascar project was declared 'obsolete', everyone was psychologically, or rather, logically, prepared for the next step: since there was no territory on which it could be 'evacuated', the only 'solution' was extermination” (Arendt). He did not attempt to challenge his dignitaries after this plan to expel the Jews. The evidence presented by Arendt regarding her plan for Madagascar contradicts the material in the course which states that Eichmann was a fanatical anti-Semite. Eichmann only showed reckless behavior when he worked with the Nazis. Evil is a byproduct of recklessness when one commits actions without fully considering the consequences and selfish motives such as acquiring money and power. Thinking is a fundamental part of every person's life, yet it is a difficult concept to define. Arendt believes that Eichmann had no sadistic motivations when he worked in the Schutzstaffel “The problem with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that many were neither perverts nor sadists, that they were, and still are, terribly and frighteningly normal. From the point of view of our legal institutions and our moral standards of judgment, this normality was far more terrifying than all the atrocities combined” (Arendt). The most immoral action among the atrocities committed by the Nazis was the exploitation of the nature of human tendencies to conform to authority. Senior Nazi Party officials were aware that giving orders was the least ethical part of their agenda; people such as soldiers and low-ranking officers are very unlikely to challenge the orders of their superiors. Recklessness is more closely related to recklessness than ignorance. Ignorance involves a person making a choice and ignoring an instinctive thought in order to take action. The unconscious part of the brain constitutes the nature of human behavior and is comparable to carefreeness. Arendt describes recklessness as a normality of conformity manifested by all people, as revealed by the findings of Milgram's shock experiment. The conscious mind is the part of the brain that creates thoughts, and the unconscious part of the brain is what denotes the moral limit beyond which people will continue to follow orders. Arendt believes that thought is a barrier to prevent humanity's tendency to commit evil deeds; Despite this, there is no specific antidote to evil because it is rooted in human nature. Recklessness is called banal by Arendt because she is trying to show that the nature of all behavior is ordinary or banal. Reactions, reflexes and habits generally determine most of a person's daily actions at work, school or leisure. It can be comical to understand the routine ways in which human beings behave. As exposed at the top of the Nazi Party, people naturally avoid difficult interactions or decisions when faced with moral complications. The Nazis are one of many organized groups around the world that use a chain of command that allows the powerful to avoid confrontation with the oppressed. It's comical that the people who create evil in the world behave and make decisions similar to us. Recklessness is the product of the overwhelming control of a group or society. Any individual can be reckless when performing a trivial task,.