The following text is about political philosophy.
Hannah Arendt's concept of "the banality of evil," developed from observing Adolf Eichmann's trial, described how ordinary people commit horrific acts through thoughtlessness rather than demonic motivation. Eichmann, Arendt argued, was not a monster but a bureaucrat who failed to think about the human consequences of his administrative acts. This idea was controversial: some felt it minimized atrocity by making perpetrators seem ordinary. But Arendt's point was precisely that ordinariness was terrifying—it could happen anywhere thoughtlessness prevails and moral reflection fails.
What was Arendt's central insight about "the banality of evil"?
Evil requires demonic or monstrous individuals
Ordinary thoughtlessness can enable horrific acts without monstrous motivation
Bureaucracy prevents all evil acts
Eichmann was unique and his behavior cannot be generalized
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Arendt argued Eichmann was "not a monster but a bureaucrat who failed to think" and that "ordinariness was terrifying—it could happen anywhere thoughtlessness prevails."
- Evidence: Ordinary bureaucrat; failed to think; could happen anywhere.
- Reasoning: Thoughtlessness, not monstrous nature, was the cause.
- Conclusion: Everyday thoughtlessness enables great evil.
Choice A is incorrect because Arendt argued against this. Choice C is incorrect because bureaucracy was involved in the evil, not preventing it. Choice D is incorrect because "it could happen anywhere" implies generalizability.