The role of evil in Aristotle, Kant and Hannah Arendt Essay

The role of evil in Aristotle, Kant and Hannah Arendt - Essay Example Immoderation - it is the form of evil, which is related to the sphere of reason, and not to the sphere of will. The subject possessing this disadvantage is normal in his judgments but is abnormal in his relation to his intentions and the ways of their realization. In other words, immoderate is able to reasonably judge the events which take place, but he acts unreasonably. The flows of rage, love passions and other strong incentives lead him to the state, when he possessing the knowledge, does not possess it in the same time. In these cases knowledge is left as if strange and indifferent towards his soul. Immoderation is different depravity - the next form of evil - the inability to control one's incentives. According to Aristotle, depravity is the very moral evil. It does not exclude the well-developed reason, sense, strong will, but it presupposes their negative directness. Depraved person is fully guilty in his behavior, as he has got the ability to be another, but he does not use it. Thus, having divided the evil into the three different displays, Aristotle has separated amorality from weakness and foolishness.3 Having crated the source of the amorality not in some separate psychological ability, but in the insufficient abnormal development of any of them (or all of them), Aristotle has closely come to the understanding of the systematic inner world of the human being. After Aristotle, the close connection between the understanding of the moral evil and the disharmony of the psychic functions has strongly entered the culture. It has appeared to be compatible with the rationalistic requirements for the prevailing of the reason over the passions, as well as with the Christian condemnation of tyranny as the source of... The aim of this work is to discuss the evil from the viewpoint of Aristotle, Kant and Arendt, and to see how the concept of genocide applies to their ideas. We will have thus to conclude, which of the concepts is the best applied to the issue of genocide.The question of evil has been the subject of many discussion and philosophic works. It has always been interesting to see how different philosophers viewed the understanding of evil, and how they applied it to reality. It is difficult to think of any philosopher who has not devoted at least some part of his (her) works to the concept of evil. The aim of this work is to discuss the evil from the viewpoint of Aristotle, Kant and Hannah Arendt, and to see how the concept of genocide applies to their ideas. We will have thus to conclude, which of the concepts is the best applied to the issue of genocide. Arendt's idea of evil for me appears to be the most appropriate of all described. The notion of banality of evil without roots is the b est presentation of the genocide concept from the philosophic point of view. It appears to be true that we can't grasp the idea and the reasons of genocide with our minds, the roots of genocide are also closed for us. Thinking about the difference between the banality and the commonplace of the genocide, it appears that in reality genocide is far from being a commonplace event, but trying to come down to its roots and the incentives which made people perform such actions, we come to the conclusion that not only no roots are seen there,