Which Is Greater Evil, Obvious Or Banal Evil? ✓ Solved

Which is the greater evil, an obvious evil or a banal evil?

Hello! I need an argumentative essay for my enc1102 class. Topic: Based on your understanding of Zimbardo’s lecture and using the short stories as your evidence write an argument answering the following: Which is the greater evil, an obvious evil or a banal evil?

In the realm of ethics and moral philosophy, the distinction between obvious evil and banal evil presents a compelling narrative as it challenges our understanding of human behavior and morality. Notably, Philip Zimbardo, in his lecture "Journey From the Psychology of Evil to the Psychology of Heroism," explores the dynamics of evil through a psychological lens, questioning how ordinary individuals can commit heinous acts under certain circumstances. In this essay, we will argue that banal evil is the greater evil, as it reflects a systemic failure to recognize morality and the desensitization of individuals to wrongdoing within societal structures.

The Nature of Obvious Evil

Obvious evil is often characterized by clear, overt acts of malice, such as murder, torture, or terrorism. These acts are readily identifiable, often eliciting a visceral reaction from the public. They stand in stark contrast to everyday norms of behavior and are condemned outright by society. Historical figures, like Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, exemplify obvious evil through their blatant atrocities that devastated millions. Such acts provoke immediate outrage, prompting societal and legal responses aimed at Justice.

However, the psychological impact of obvious evil is relatively straightforward; it is easy to identify and reject. The focus tends to be on the perpetrators and their monstrous actions, thereby creating a clear divide between good and evil. The dilemma of obvious evil often lies in how society can prevent its occurrence, leading to discussions about morality, justice systems, and how societies can guard against such egregious acts.

The Concept of Banal Evil

Banal evil, on the other hand, is much more insidious. Coined by Hannah Arendt during her coverage of the Adolf Eichmann trial, the term refers to the type of evil that manifests in ordinary individuals who participate in harmful actions without a clear intent to cause harm. This can often occur in bureaucratic settings where individuals become desensitized to the consequences of their actions due to a focus on adherence to rules and roles. The chilling aspect of banal evil is that it reveals how ordinary people, when placed in specific contexts, can become complicit in actions that contribute to widespread suffering.

Zimbardo raises this concern through the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment, which highlights how situational factors can lead individuals to engage in harmful behavior. The prison guards in the experiment, who were initially ordinary college students, became cruel and abusive to the inmates when placed in a position of power. This illustrates that under certain conditions, individuals may abandon their moral compass, leading to systemic evils that are not easily recognizable but profoundly damaging nonetheless.

The Implications of Banal Evil

The implications of banal evil in society can be seen in various contexts, including systemic racism, corporate malfeasance, and governmental policies that perpetuate injustice. Unlike obvious evil, which is condemned outright, banal evil often operates under the guise of normality, becoming embedded in the fabric of society. This can lead to a lack of accountability and a diminished moral response among individuals who witness acts of evil and justify them as mere compliance with authority or tradition.

An illustrative example can be drawn from literature. In short stories such as "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson, the characters participate in a ritualized killing that is accepted as tradition, reflecting how societal norms can enable banal evil. The story forces readers to confront the uncomfortable truth that evil can thrive in communal settings when individuals choose compliance over moral conviction. The shift from personal responsibility to a collective acceptance of harmful routines highlights the dangers of banal evil, as it erodes ethical judgments and fosters complicity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while obvious evil evokes immediate revulsion and calls for action, banal evil represents a more pervasive threat as it is often obscured within societal structures and cultural traditions. Understanding the dynamics of both forms of evil is crucial; however, the greater evil lies in the banal form, as it undermines moral integrity and fosters environments where harmful actions can proliferate unchecked. Philip Zimbardo’s exploration of the psychology of heroism also suggests the importance of promoting moral courage and individual responsibility to counteract the effects of banal evil. As individuals and societies, recognizing and confronting banal evil is essential in our ongoing quest for justice and morality.

References

• Arendt, H. (1963). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Viking Press.
• Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Basic Books.
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row.
• Pratt, S. (2020). Understanding the Psychology of Evil: A Journey Through Zimbardo's Views. Psychology Today.
• Jackson, S. (1948). The Lottery. The New Yorker.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
• Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. University of California Press.
• Friedman, J. (2014). The Psychology of Ordinary Evil: A Review of Zimbardo’s Work. Journal of Social Issues.
• Hoffman, M. L. (2000). Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. Cambridge University Press.
• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Anchor Books.