Analysis of The Frivolity of Evil

Dalrymple’s Thesis

In his 2004 City Journal article, Theodore Dalrymple expresses his view on the tremendous decline in the quality of life in Great Britain. He believed that society has accepted the notion that people are not responsible for their own problems. Also, that it is the “moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites” that perpetuates the social dynamics that are responsible for the continuing decline of British society. According to the author, a physician about to retire after a career treating criminal justice offenders and victims, there are several pervasive misconceptions that explain the continuing decline of British society.

The first misconception claims that there is the notion that “evil” is only something committed by despots and tyrants, such as the atrocities studied in human history. Second, is the notion that the medical community is complicit in the decline of society by engaging in a “ridiculous pas de deux.” This meaning that eminently predictable problems attributable to bad choices made by individuals are conceptualized and treated as medical ailments, such as depression. The following point states that while few individuals specifically seek to do evil, virtually all of the evil in modern life (at least within non-tyrannical societies) is caused by the choices made by persons throughout their lives. Fourth, the idea that passing judgment on moral choices and irresponsible behaviors is “wrong.” As a final point, he expresses that the state blindly enables the conduct responsible for the decline of society by rewarding and incentivizing personal irresponsibility.

Dalrymple’s Main Arguments in Support of his Thesis

Dalrymple supports his first point by...

... middle of paper ...

... of simultaneously providing assistance to children who are entirely innocent of the mistakes of their irresponsible parents. In theory, he is absolutely correct in saying that providing government-funded benefits to single mothers and to children in need does incentivize certain types of irresponsibility in family planning. Particularly, the latter hinders responsible family planning in connection with accountability and the earned obligations of irresponsible fathers. But, merely terminating all such benefits would probably contribute even further to the very situation the Dalrymple is describing. In that respect alone, and in his failure to propose a viable solution or alternative, I feel that his argument is somewhat lacking. Though I do see eye to eye with Dalrymple on the majority of points made, I have trouble providing my entire agreement with his argument.