> To Arendt, that was the scariest thing of all – that such evil could be perpetrated by so banal an individual. My takeaway from Eichmann was not that Eichman

> To Arendt, that was the scariest thing of all – that such evil could be perpetrated by so banal an individual. My takeaway from Eichmann was not that Eichmann _wasn't_ a horrible person. It's very clear that he is horrible, that he had full knowledge of what he was doing. Her characterization of him was actually comical. Totally irreverent of the man. (and, made the book quite a fun read) But I think Eichmann made a deeper point. "Banality" described his self-conception. The way his place in society was created for him, and the way he used it, not even to justify and rationalize his actions, but to simply allow himself to work without thinking towards the evil that transpired. The way that Nazi society created a mechanism by which he could, by default and without effort, continue working, in spite of obvious evidence of cruelty. In fact, seeing the gas vans up close was disturbing to Eichmann, as it would be to anyone. She generalized the mechanism beyond the Nazis (the controversy of the book was that it pointed out how closely the Jews of Europe assisted Eichmann with his work). It is these "default", "without effort" positions that we take, in all of our daily lives, that ultimately are evil. Although Eichmann was a particularly stupid and egregious example, we all have little sayings that we say to ourselves that allow us to ignore the cruelty and evil that happens in front of our face as a result of the structures we find ourselves in. And therefore: that it is our moral duty to see what's in front of us and reject wherever possible the "default" or "passive" position. Eichmann was notable because of his utter inability to do that. Nothing more. So, I think I disagree with the author, the root of evil is cowardice.