Hannah Arendt's Argumentative Analysis

From the peaceful, leadership acts of Martin Luther King Jr during the Civil Rights Movement to Malcolm X’s any means necessary tactics during the same Movement—the issue of whether violence is inherent in all humans or if it is taught among, is prevalent. Did Malcolm X teach himself to be more violent than Martin Luther King Jr, or did King Jr simply teach himself to be less violent? Are the differences simply due to different beliefs or is there something inherent about their views? There are philosophers who will argue that violent is inherent in being a human being, such as Thomas Hobbes and Hannah Arendt. Then, there are philosophers who disagree with Hobbes and Arendt thoughts over violence, such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau. There are contrasting …show more content…
The majority of those writings involved Arendt defending the idea of violence in certain situations. In her mind, she saw violence as an act that was essential, in a way, to human nature and a way that could be effective if used correctly. “Violence, being instrumental by nature, is rational to the extent that it is effective in reaching the end which must justify it” (Arendt). Of course, Arendt did not condone violence in the sense of people senselessly committing acts of violence for no reason at all, but more so in the sense of people performing violent acts for reasons. Those reasons ranged from protection or in terms of political reasons, such as the Civil Rights Movement. The most interesting aspect I’ve discovered within the writings of Arendt is, despite the fact she believes violence is an aspect of nature, she also believes it can be heavily influenced—so it does not remain stoic. “Finally, the greater the bureaucratization of public life, the greater will be the attraction of violence” (Arendt). In this, Arendt confesses to the idea of thought that believes that, although violence may be within humans, it is also further emphasized throughout the life of a