Introduction
Theodore Dalrymple is an eminent psychiatrist who, in his essay “The Frivolity of Evil,” explored the reasons why people do evil things. The main argument is that such actions often need profound ideas or subtext. They are explained by the fact that the individual has the opportunity to commit evil, which they use. Therefore, this paper analyzes Dalrymple’s essay and, for a deeper analysis, the insights from Thomas Hobbes and J.S. Mill.
Author’s Main Argument
Dalrymple’s major points center on the idea that society is devouring itself since so much of the bad that is happening is a result of our past behavior. Evil actions often arise from trivial motives rather than serious ideological or malicious intent. Dalrymple argues that people only do evil because they can and “within the scope available to them” (Arandia 156).
The author gives the example of a prisoner who, after serving their sentence, leaves with their head held high, believing that they have made amends with society and are now free to start over. However, committing crimes is a personal choice only the individual can make. In his 14-year job in the slums, the author has interacted with many people and seen various wickedness. The author discusses widespread problems that are simple to misinterpret as errors that will make it simpler to boost productivity and provide difficulties to society.
Supporting Evidence and Ancillary Arguments
The author provides examples to support his points, such as a mother who rejects her child in favor of a new boyfriend. The requirements of the child should come first. Thus, it is not acceptable at all. Despite this, a lover who does not want children or whom one must hide children from does not seem like a good fit (Dalrymple 46). The author implies that people make their own decisions and would subsequently blame others for them by describing them as wicked because there is no reasonable conclusion from all the possibilities in such a scenario.
Personal Opinion
I concur with the author’s depiction of frivolous evil because it permeates society and ourselves, which is why it exists. We are all unique individuals with distinctive qualities; it can be challenging to ensure productivity and make sure that we develop into the people we want to be in society as a whole. Due to our unique characteristics, we each have different jobs and duties. For instance, some people have clean hearts and the desire to serve others without justification, while others have crude and evil souls.
Most criminals simply make a mistake, while other fortunate people continue to live in society because they refrained from succumbing to their wickedness. Some people simply can not resist the impulse to battle, making it a challenge to their evil. As a result, they get into difficulty and have the power to corrupt others who lack the desire to fight in order to become like them.
Application of Insights from Course Readings
Thomas Hobbes and J.S. Mill are two philosophers whose insights can be relevant to this analysis. Hobbes’ theory of the social contract and the state of nature can be applied to discussing societal evil. Hobbes argued that without a governing authority, humans would engage in a “war of all against all” (Arandia 90).
On the other hand, J.S. Mill takes the opposite position, arguing that evil acts are not due to permissiveness but to self-obsession. They cannot think about the consequences of their actions or assess the impact on others, leading them to make decisions that harm others (Arandia 118). These perspectives can be used to understand the role of social and institutional restraints in preventing the escalation of evil and maintaining order in a society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dalrymple’s essay raises the critical question of the origin of evil, which many philosophers and psychologists have tried to explain. According to the author, evil deeds are relatively trivial and have no deep motives or concepts. In addition, they can be explained by permissiveness and the lack of a system that could effectively regulate people’s behavior. This Dalrymple statement can be supported by looking at it through the perspective of other philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes and J.S. Mill.
Work Cited
Arandia, Marcos. Competing Visions: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Kendall Hunt Publishing, 2013.
Dalrymple, Theodore. “The Frivolity of Evil”. The Social Order, Public Safety, 2004.