Hannah Arendt's phrase "banality of evil" did not mean evil was banal, but that ordinary banal people were capable of doing the most terrible things, and the reality of their evil is nicely hidden with euphemisms, a dispassionate and objective discussion of the problem and how they would solve it. And at the end of the day, they claim they did nothing wrong.
from Randall Smith at the Catholic Thing:
Consider someone writing a historical account of the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. What would a “neutral,” “dispassionate” account be?
If someone could write a neutral, dispassionate account of such horrors, what would it reveal about the writer? That he or she was admirably “neutral”? Or utterly heartless, lacking understanding? How could you be “neutral” about the systematic murder of millions of human beings?
A person says: “Today I got up, got dressed, ate breakfast, fed my parrot, walked to the office, arranged for the extermination of 60,000 Jews, got a haircut, and went home for dinner.” “Wait,” we say. “What was that 60,000 thing again?” We wouldn’t be reassured if the person responded: “It was just another activity in my day. I try to look at things from a neutral standpoint”? You either oppose evil, or you’re allowing it to seem “normal” – like eating breakfast.
ah, but too many secular blogs are writing about how they are happy the Pope says there is no hell, because after all, a good god wouldn't punish anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment