Radical evil

The radical (s) Evil is a subject of history and moral philosophy. Immanuel Kant was talking about the " Radical " evil as an anthropological constant of disobeying a plant for inclination, the moral law. Hannah Arendt related to the term " radical evil " in their search for explanations for the Holocaust as a cipher for a thinking and acting patterns, which is the industrial genocide is based.

Use the two positions "radical" (from the Latin radix, root ) so in various ways: Kant it comes to determine the " root " of evil, while Arendt thus an extreme, a maximum form of evil means, without any limitation.

Immanuel Kant

In April 1792 Kant published in Berlinischen weekly essay about the radical evil in human nature, which he then took up the first thing in his piece a year later appearing writing on Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.

Evil determined Kant as an option of human freedom, contrary to the " objective laws of morality " to actions that determine what is good for him. According to Kant, the evil is radical, insofar as it is rooted as inclination or " propensity to evil " in human nature, that is, it has anthropological rank. The propensity to evil here is the " subjective [ ... ] reason [ ... ] the possibility of a deviation of the maxims from the moral laws" ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 29) and has itself as a " Actus of freedom " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 21) are understood to be " the moral power of the arbitrariness stick [ must ] " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 31) - otherwise the behavior would not morally evaluate viz.

Thus man has by nature a propensity to evil. Here, Kant limits the nature of man from his general conception of nature (cf. Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 21). "Nature " refers to the whole system of appearances, which are linked by the principle of causality in the cause - effect relationships. This nature had the possibility of transcendental freedom faced already in the Critique of Pure Reason Kant. In the "human nature " or rather in human beings freedom and causality are connected: If the specific behavior of a peace based on reasons and maxims of individual " use " of transcendental freedom ( spontaneity ) is based, it can be understood as sane efficient action can. With the possibility of this individual use human nature contains both the " predisposition to the good " as the " propensity to evil ."

This propensity to evil determined Kant already in the Critique of Practical Reason ( KpV ) and in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (GMS ). Kant says that man has in his pursuit of happiness, the fulfillment of all needs and inclinations, "a powerful counterweight " to the categorical imperative. This springs from " a natural dialectic ," which he referred to as " slope " of the people " against the laws of the obligation to reason, and its validity [ ... ] in doubt pull " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0004IV, 405: GMS ). He takes this idea in the KpV again. There he determined the slope as " self-love " and " self-conceit " when human tendency " to make themselves according to the subjective determinants of its arbitrariness to the objective determining ground of the will at all " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0005V, 47: KpV ). That is, the self-love with their pursuit of happiness is. Determination by the free reason for unconditional law of their own actions, rather than the moral law So it is not the individual biological needs and personal tastes of self, which account for the propensity to evil, but beyond this tendency of reason to confuse the subjective and non- general determinants of the will with the objective and its fulfillment to unconditional maxim of one's own to make actions. The categorical imperative is now just the command to act on objective grounds: " [ ... ] handle only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time can, that it should become a universal law. " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0004IV, 421: GMS ). The practical reason has in the " respect " for the moral law or for its distinction from the principle of self- love is a " driving force " to move the arbitrariness of the decision for the implementation of the moral law. Only if man follow the moral law does, he is autonomous, according to Kant, that he will meet his nature as a human being. Man can be, however, of his self-love and the pursuit of happiness are derived, as it is determined by others.

" This evil is radical, because it corrupts the ground of all maxims; at the same time not to destroy as a natural slope by human forces, because this could be done only through good maxims, which, when the supreme subjective ground of all maxims is assumed to be corrupted, can not take place; but nevertheless he has to outweigh its possible because it is encountered in the human being as an acting being free. "

Evil is so radical because it, like the predisposition to the good is rooted in the depth of human freedom assets and thus can the " ground of all maxims " spoil. Conditioning and slope are not equal, as the system for the better part of the necessary possibility of the human being, while the propensity to evil " for humanity by chance" ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 25), that is, the propensity to evil is for humans conceptually not essential, although it generally belongs to the human species. Kant distinguishes namely the " plant for the animal kingdom ," the people together as biological beings, and the "Plant for mankind" that makes human nature as a rational being, of the individual investment "for his personality." Only the latter the individual is a moral 'attribution capable of [ it ] being "( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 26), so a person who can be held individually responsible for their own actions. The plant for the personality is the " susceptibility of respect for the moral law, as one of themselves sufficient driving force of arbitrary " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 27). Is susceptibility to the respect now individually weak, so is the individual propensity to evil, which Kant called " corruption ( corruptio ) of the human heart " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 30 ) refers, very strong, causing the plant to is humanity, autonomy, perverted ( cf. Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 30): instead of the moral law determine individual preferences and inclinations of the genre action. The slope is enhanced by defects at the other stages of the system, namely, the " frailty ( fragilitas ) of human nature " and " the unfairness of the human heart " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 30), that is, special biological need and lack of honesty towards yourself evil is no separate " driving force ", but the " perversity ( perversitas ) of the human heart " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 30): the respect for the moral law is in the determination of the will subordinated to the love of self, and thus the " moral order of the driving forces " ( Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 36 ) upside down.

Evil actions are in debt individually according to Kant and must be individually responsible despite the general slope. But attribution capability for Kant only what is done by their own act. However, the propensity to evil itself can not be the result of an empirical action, because it is defined as the subjective determining ground of arbitrariness and therefore a priori always need to be concrete ( empirical ) action. Kant solves the problem by an " intelligible fact " postulated in which man sets his top priority, depend all other maxims of the ( Immanuel Kant AA 0006VI, 31). This has a pure reason origin and no temporal origin and, if at all, so be recognizable only by pure reason and without any time constraints. From this perspective, every person is either good or evil by the choice of its maxims. In an empirical evaluation of the actions they can not be evaluated according to the extremes, but fall into gray areas of indifference to the law or the mixture of self-love and respect ( See footnote to Immanuel Kant: AA 0006VI, 39).

Hannah Arendt

With regard to the experience of the Holocaust Hannah Arendt dealt with the question of the radical evil and thereby came to differing views without final judgment. In their Denktagebuch Arendt held in June 1950 stated: " The radical evil is that which should not have happened, ie that with which one can not reconcile what you can accept as destiny, under any circumstances, and what you do not even must pass by in silence. It is that for which we can not take responsibility, because its consequences are incalculable, and because there is no penalty under these conclusions which would be adequate. This does not mean that every evil must be punished; but it must, should one reconcile or to turn away from him, be punishable " ( Arendt: Denktagebuch, p.7). The radical evil shows up in the filter, above all, to its historical and moral consequences.

In a letter to Karl Jaspers in March 1951, she attempted a preliminary typing: " What radical evil really is, I do not know, but I think it has something to do with the following phenomena: The Überflüssigmachung of man as man ( not to use it as a means, which indeed their humanity untouched, and only violates their human dignity, but to make them superfluous qua man ) "( Arendt. letter to Karl Jaspers dated 4 March 1951)

The conditions for the occurrence of radical evil they situate in The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951 in English ) in the claim of total domination, even in their ability (and not only in regard to the subsumption of the entire society under the rule ) to be totally "But in their quest to prove that anything is possible, has a total domination, without really wanting to, discovered that it can really give a radically evil. When the impossible became possible, it turned out that it is identical to the unbestrafbaren, unforgivable radical evil that one can not understand or explain the motives of self-interest, greed, envy, greed, resentment, cowardice " ( Arendt.: The Origins of Totalitarianism, Munich 1996, p 941). Between March and April 1953 listed Arendt in her Denktagebuch: " There are radical evil, but not radically good. The radical evil is produced whenever a radically good is willed. " ( Arendt, Denktagebuch )

In its report, Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963, she developed this idea further to the presentation of the "banality of evil". Thus, in the power structure of the Nazi evil was ubiquitous, it aiming to abolish the people as people and destroy one by one all people in the name of abstract progress targets industrial, until only officials of "organized powerlessness " of the totalitarian system remain. But these officials may at any time be changed so that they survive in the end only as a function, but not as people. Eichmann in Jerusalem subject of fierce accusations was, who wanted to see in Arendt's description a trivialization or even excuse the Holocaust by sociological circumstances, Arendt finally declared its position again in 1965 in a series of lectures, published under the title over evil only from the estate been.