Whiplash17488 t1_j25ya7e wrote
Reply to comment by kfpswf in How the concept: Banality of evil developed by Hanna Arendt can be applied to AI Ethics in order to understand the unintentional behaviour of machines that are intelligent but not conscious. by AndreasRaaskov
I think its more that the nazi’s thought they were the good guys, genuinely rather than people doing evil for the sake of evil.
The cognitive error Arendt based it on was Eichmann’s trial in Jeruzalem. Eichmann was responsible for the orchestration of the logistics of the holocaust.
Eichmann’s values were that efficiency is good. A good work ethic is good. That’s the way to move up in the world and provide for your family. That’s the way to fit in and become homogeneous with your community.
The cognitive dissonance of the evil his actions were causing was pushed down and abstracted away on paper and numbers and quotas.
Similarly, someone might say a drone pilot pressing a button on his joystick causing children to die in collateral damage isn’t “evil”. Well it is to some. Others are just trying to do a good job.
My examples are imperfect, but the premise of her argument is that nobody is capable of assenting to a judgement they think is evil. Everyone assents to doing “good” at some level.
Her paper was intentionally controversial and was not meant as an excuse for the holocaust.
kfpswf t1_j26gwv2 wrote
>I think its more that the nazi’s thought they were the good guys, genuinely rather than people doing evil for the sake of evil.
Yes, that's the 'warped perception' I was referring to. It was a worldview of a very insecure, power-drunk Hitler that became their guiding light.
>My examples are imperfect, but the premise of her argument is that nobody is capable of assenting to a judgement they think is evil. Everyone assents to doing “good” at some level.
Your example are great actually. Yes, as long as you can brainwash people into believing they're doing good, and we know how easy it is to do so, people will continue to commit evil rather enthusiastically.
>Her paper was intentionally controversial and was not meant as an excuse for the holocaust.
It may not have focused on the overall evil of the holocaust, but the general mechanism is the same. You adopt a flawed or limited worldview, and then commit evil in the name of your greater good.
Whiplash17488 t1_j26yi1b wrote
I realize now I wrote that comment as a response for someone else and accidentally posted it to you. There isn't a single thing you said I disagree with even though I started with "I think its more that..." which implies I took a different take than you. Not the case. My bad.
kfpswf t1_j275679 wrote
No worries friend. We have nothing to debate about. Have a good day!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments