(c)2021 BookRags, Inc. All rights reserved.
The concept of evil's banality was first explored in Eichmann's trial, during which he exuded much of the behavior that led Arendt to her conclusion. When on the stand, Eichmann never expressed guilt for his acts. Instead, he explained that he had followed orders and never considered the impact of his actions, a feeling he still demonstrated while on trial. While Eichmann's inability to show remorse seemed to strengthen the prosecutions case that he was in fact a " sadistic monster", there is a disturbing amount of evidence to contradict this claim. Arendt notes that nearly a half-dozen psychiatrists found Eichmann to be a perfectly normal being, void of any inbred hatred of Jews.
Based on the following evidence, Arendt begins to develop an explanation for Eichmann's case. The core of her argument rests on the belief that Adolf Eichmann lacked the faculty to think reasonably and morally about the effect of his actions. In other words, he was not an Anti-Semitic and he did not champion violence or killing. If none of these are true, we might be tempted to conclude that Eichmann was actually a harmless individual. On the contrary, Eichmann's incompetence allowed him to behave in such a manner, which is something Arendt believes we are all dangerously capable of doing.