Eichmann was not just any sort of bureaucrat; he was a middle-level manager. As such, he never ordered anyone's death. These orders were given from above or below. For him, not ordering made him not responsible, except in terms of aiding and abetting. He did not create the policy, nor did he directly carry it out. He turned the policy into action and guided the action, so his hands felt clean. It is much easier for a middle manager to tell himself he is not really responsible for bad things that are done. I believe most men think in that way. If you are not the one who does the action, then you should have nothing to worry about. That was the banality of Eichmann's evil. He was not a monster. He was normal, exceptionally normal. He just wanted to do his job, and do it right. So, were the rest of us to follow?.
In order for a person to make a difficult decision, one had to be able to look at multiple points of view. I believe that is the only way to fully understand what it would take to act out certain orders. For some, seeing different point of views seems unnecessary. Those people only see their view and do not bother with other opinions. The inability to put oneself into another's position sounds like a personality defect, but it is also an ethical issue. How can anyone serve the public interest when he thinks foremost of himself and his career? How can someone like this ever show the moral courage necessary to not only think ethically, but also to act ethically?.
For one to make an ethical decision, one has to remember what they have been taught and how they were raised. Loyalty, honor, professionalism, these are all considered good values. However, they should not be one's principal values. Loyalty to whom, one must ask oneself. Honor to what, professionalism directed toward what goals? We were fighting amongst ourselves for the honor of taking the lead. Not one spoke out against the murder of millions of people.