“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition, and a psychological understanding of the people concerned, that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” -Joseph Goebbels
Humans understand morality as the distinction between a virtuous and evil act or behavior. In a general sense, human views of morality overlap a significant amount yet the action is defined by law and language. In the Untied States, the law defines that murder is a criminal act, while at other times, as in self-defense, the taking of human life is justified. This means the government has the ability to influence human thought in regards to moral behaviors. Many people today do not believe the government is capable of, nor ever would, attempt such a feat. So, let us turn our attention to a recent example in history: the inversion of morality by the German Third Reich.
Hannah Arendt was a German philosopher and political theorist who lived through both world wars. She is known for a few great pieces, one of which is “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.” Eichmann was involved with the creation of the Holocaust and its organization. He was the lead SS officer of transportation and logistics, therefore he directly dealt with the deportation of Jews to concentration and death camps. Although we might imagine him a vile and wicked creature, Eichmann, as Hannah would suggest, isn’t like Hitler and Himmler. She describes the SS officer as rather dull and unintelligent, able to regurgitate philosophical wisdom but not knowing what it actually meant. Eichmann’s life and early military career were of no significance, he was by all means a normal German citizen.
During the trial, they questioned Eichmann about his response to Himmler in regards to stopping deportation of the Jews. He confessed that he had not halted the operation and actively continued with their deportation. Himmler’s order to stop killing was unlawful since the laws of the Reich justified and promoted the extermination of Jews. This lawfully became the duty of every German citizen. Eichmann psychologically believed he was a morally virtuous and law-abiding citizen. He had no personal hatred for the Jewish population, he was simply carrying out his civil duty. Arendt concludes that society can experience not only a moral collapse, such as anarchy, but also a moral inversion due to governments. The language of duty, honor, and also right and wrong, is kept even though the meanings and content is completely flipped inside out.
Her account of the Third Reich and its morality is this, “And just as the law in civilized countries assumes that the voice of conscience tells everybody, “Thou shalt not kill,” even though man’s natural desires and inclinations may at times be murderous, so the law of Hitler’s land demanded that the voice of conscience tell everybody: “Thou shalt kill,” although the organizers of the massacres knew full well that murder is against the normal desires and inclinations of most people. Evil in the Third Reich had lost the quality by which most people recognize it— the quality of temptation.” Arendt reveals a new technique used in controlling human thought and behavior— the banality of evil. As she hauntingly puts it, “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal.”
In a normal moral experience, the law and morality overlap a significant amount. Temptations are to be opposed and resisted as they go against either our own morals or that of society. When that moral standard undergoes inversion, temptation is also inverted. The German people came to know and experience the desire not to kill as temptation since the law demanded otherwise. A totalitarian regime was able to deceive an entire population into actively participating in mass genocide and the citizens were none the wiser. The Third Reich manipulated language to such a degree that they were able to disguise the true agenda in their laws. The law justified lawlessness. It is not easy to recognize this tactic, and even harder to resist if the transformation is broad, deep, and subtle enough.