Understanding Hannah Arendt's Perspective on Moral Responsibility in Dictatorships

Image by Bernd Schwabe, via Wikimedia Commons

Hannah Arendt sparked significant debate when her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem, introduced the term "banality of evil," particularly in relation to the trial of Adolf Eichmann. Rather than portraying Eichmann as a monstrous figure, Arendt characterized him as disturbingly ordinary, leading to an outcry that she was diminishing the gravity of his actions. Critics accused her of placing undue blame on victims forced into complicity while absolving Eichmann of deeper moral responsibility. To address these concerns, Arendt penned an essay titled "Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship" in 1964, aiming to clarify her stance regarding individual complicity within oppressive regimes.

In her analysis, Arendt provocatively asserts that anyone who worked within the Nazi regime, regardless of their motives or degree of involvement, bears moral responsibility for their actions. She acknowledges that many collaborators weren't outright criminals; they opted to align themselves with a fundamentally criminal system. The nuance lies in recognizing the moral challenge: every individual who served the regime accepted varying levels of violence—even when alternative paths existed, albeit perilous ones. Citing Mary McCarthy, Arendt illustrates this predicament by suggesting that a person confronted with violent coercion is merely being “tempted.”

The distinction Arendt draws is pivotal. Although many who collaborated with the regime acted within a framework that may legally excuse them, they faced a distinct moral dilemma. The prevailing belief that "it is better to suffer than do wrong" becomes a guiding principle amidst the chaos of unethical governance. Arendt argues that rather than being evil themselves, figures like Eichmann were simply conformists untroubled by the moral crises that their actions incited. She argues that those from well-established backgrounds within “respectable society” were particularly quick to exchange one moral stance for another, remaining largely unchallenged by the ideological shifts around them.

Conversely, those who refused to engage in atrocities, even at the cost of their lives, did not necessarily possess deeper moral sophistication. They engaged in what Arendt describes as a "silent dialogue" with their own conscience, illustrating a struggle that transcends intellect but reflects a profound commitment to personal integrity. Such individuals were aware that the true burden lies in living with oneself after committing or facilitating harm, emphasizing that self-identity should not be compromised for the sake of survival.

Arendt’s reflections challenge the notion that participation in a corrupt system is the only option available. She suggests that even seemingly trivial acts of non-compliance can accumulate and exert pressure on the structures of authority. Drawing from James Madison, she notes that "All governments rest on consent." This principle implies that the absence of consent from citizens or employees diminishes the power of oppressive leaders. While she acknowledges the daunting task of resisting a one-party state, she posits that accepting one's own powerlessness can yield a "last remnant of strength" to withdraw support effectively.

We have only for a moment to imagine what would happen to any of these forms of government if enough people would act “irresponsibly” and refuse support, even without active resistance and rebellion, to see how effective a weapon this could be. It is in fact one of the many variations of nonviolent action and resistance—for instance the power that is potential in civil disobedience.

Arendt acknowledges the high stakes of such refusals, recognizing that non-participation in an unjust apparatus often comes with severe consequences. Nevertheless, she suggests that the alternative—becoming complicit in wrongdoing—could lead to even graver outcomes.

Note: An earlier version of this post appeared on our site in 2017.

Related Content:

Hannah Arendt Explains How Propaganda Uses Lies to Erode All Truth & Morality: Insights from The Origins of Totalitarianism

Hannah Arendt’s Original Articles on “the Banality of Evil” in the New Yorker Archive

Henry David Thoreau on When Civil Disobedience and Resistance Are Justified (1849)

Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC.