In “Frivolity of Evil” psychiatrist Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, recap his 14 years of experience in a prison hospital. Theodore states that man is inherently immoral, and the rest of society is not. Man will act normally until a new evil is raised and problems are nonstop. The more a person does well and is distinguished as being good, the less evil they are. Also, the confusion behind evil bring attentions of determining the true meaning, identifying immoral behavior, and discovering the origins of evil. Although persecution of the wicked has been based upon unreliability, I claim that environmental, biological, and humanistic factors also structure an individual to be manifest evil.
Dr. Dalrymple describes one of his main argument by stating that in certain situations, human is primary responsible for
…show more content…
His arguments are that our misery stems from the choices we make about how we choose to live our lives. The many examples that are used and given in this essay are acknowledged of the “frivolity of evil.” It states that it’s the idea of pleasuring or pleasing one’s self with the sacrifice and misery passing onto others. In the text, Dalrymple supports his testimony by describing his frustrating experiences of former patients failing to recognize their destructive relationship patterns. From my opinion, his initial observation is correct. Regardless of negative life decisions, individuals who participate in this type of behavior acknowledge the impact of their actions. For example, a male patient left his ex-girlfriend after the birth of their child. He later found himself admitted to a hospital area after swallowing cocaine filled packets to avoid arrest. When asked a question concerning the subject of children abandoned by their fathers, Dalrymple portrayed his initial response as “a confession of
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.
An example of this is a man and his wife are arguing; he becomes enraged and murders his wife in the heat of the disagreement. This man has a clean record; he has never committed a murder or crime of any kind before “Statistical trends would project that he won’t murder again” (Samenow 2). This man is not a “monster,” psychopath, or a freak of nature; he is a normal person who reacts in an entirely wrong way to a hostile and stressful situation. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he rationalized the crime with his emotions and feelings rather than his morals. The “Evil is in all of us, really, but it’s how it’s expressed” that separates criminals and law abiding citizens (Prattini).
The article "The Frivolity of Evil" by Theodore Dalrymple analyzes the causes of human misery. His work as a psychiatrist in Great Britains slums afforded him a great vantage point to analyze this topic "nearer to the fundamental of human existence." He concluded that the citizens of Great Britian willingly participated in precipitating their own misery. Their are three recurring theme in his article the lack of moral responsibility, extreme individualism and lack of cultural expectations. Dalrymple begins his article by showing the mind frame of a prisoner released from prison, who had the idea that he had paid his debt to society. In order to get his point across Dalrymple compares the prisoners situation to his very own, the 14 years he spent as a psychiatrist in the slums of Great Britain. He had a choice to choose a different neighborhood just like the prisoner had a choice not to commit the crime. His argument in this article is that our misery stems from the choices we make about how we choose to live our lives. He was also able to cement his arguments by comparing and contrasting the political and social differences between Great Britain and those of Liberia, North Korea and Central America. Dalrymple observed that the people in other countries had their choices taken way from them the crimes and brutality committed in these countries where not their own making. However, in Great Britain the life of violence and poverty was "unforced and spontaneous." Dalrymple argues that the evils in his country are a product of a society that promotes individualism and accepts the right of its citizens to pursue pleasures for their own self interest.
Throughout the world, most people believe in some type of god or gods, and the majority of them understand God as all-good, all-knowing (omniscient), and all-powerful (omnipotent). However, there is a major objection to the latter belief: the “problem of evil” (P.O.E.) argument. According to this theory, God’s existence is unlikely, if not illogical, because a good, omniscient, and omnipotent being would not allow unnecessary suffering, of which there are enormous amounts.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” This oft-repeated paraphrase of a less-palatable line of Edmund Burke’s has made its way into the modern public vernacular as a call to vigilance against the eternal creep of evil. Yet the question remained: “What is the nature of this evil?” and “What action do good men take in order to prevent it?” In her 1957 Magnum Opus, Atlas Shrugged, the American novelist Ayn Rand put forward the next step in that line of thinking; “The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it.” (Rand 1066). Through Hank Rearden’s familial relationships, his struggles against the government, and John Galt’s final exposition of his philosophical discoveries, Rand explains the nature of good and evil; good can only lose if it presents itself to be negated, and evil can only triumph with good’s willing consent.
Despite its prevalence, suffering is always seen an intrusion, a personal attack on its victims. However, without its presence, there would never be anyway to differentiate between happiness and sadness, nor good and evil. It is encoded into the daily lives people lead, and cannot be avoided, much like the prophecies described in Antigone. Upon finding out that he’d murdered his father and married his mother,
In the book Eichmann Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, we are shown a man that is seemingly normal and a common type of man. As the the trial goes on, we begin to see deep inside the mind of this banal, monstrous man. Evil does not always have a “look”, sometimes evil is found in the most ordinary of men with a cliche lifestyle and a stamp of approval from half-a-dozen psychiatrists.
It is the contention of this paper that humans are born neutral, and if we are raised to be good, we will mature into good human beings. Once the element of evil is introduced into our minds, through socialization and the media, we then have the potential to do bad things. As a person grows up, they are ideally taught to be good and to do good things, but it is possible that the concept of evil can be presented to us. When this happens, we subconsciously choose whether or not to accept this evil. This is where the theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke become interesting as both men differed in the way they believed human nature to be.
He implies that this is a vicious cycle that is passed from one generation to the next. Britain's welfare system in the process fueling the fire of his beliefs. Theodore goes on to uncover some of Britain's dark secrets hidden behind closed doors, e.g. tortures at the hands of drug lords collecting debts. These are just a few examples of what Theodore had come to understand as an equally great Evil just in a different form. Theodore makes an enlightening argument "A ridiculous pas de deux between doctor and patient ensues: the patient pretends to be ill, and the doctor pretends to cure him. In the process, the patient is willfully blinded to the conduct that inevitably causes his misery in the first place." From this, I take that he believes that all circumstances surrounding misery endured are self-inflicted, and can only be rectified by a drastic change in ones way of living and
Phillip Pullman, a British author, once wrote, “I stopped believing there was a power of good and a power of evil that were outside us. And I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are”(goodreads.com). Pullman’s quotation on the actions of man being the source of good and evil closely relate to morality, principles regarding the distinction of right and wrong or a person’s values. The question of what human morality truly is has been pondered by philosophers, common folk, and writers for thousands of years. However, sometimes a person’s ethics are unclear; he or she are not wholly good or bad but, rather, morally ambiguous.
Theodore Dalrymple, in the essay “Frivolity of Evil” reflects on the evil things committed by the people and how the people have, and are facing life in a negative way even if they do not want to do so. Dalrymple’s real name being Anthony Daniels, he picked up the pseudonym of Theodore Dalrymple in 1990 to anonymously bring into light some situations in Great Britain. From the essay, it is understood that Dalrymple has served as a physician in prison in Britain for fourteen years. As he mentions, “the slate is wiped clean once a prisoner is released from prison, but the debt is not paid off”. For example, if a person committed a murder, he has chances to come out of jail, but the victim of his evil act is not going to turn out alive any time.
In a Man 's Nature is Evil, men are depicted as evil since birth. Hsün Tzu declares that "Man 's nature is evil; goodness is the result of conscious activity" (Tzu 84). He speaks about how men are born with fondness for certain aspects of life such as profit, envy and beauty. Consequently, obtaining these aspects would lead to a life of violence, crime and recklessness. According to Tzu, men are born with a pleasure for profit. However, this need for riches will cause a man to have conflicts and altercations in his life. This is due to the fact that man will have such a great urge to obtain profit in life that he will go to all means necessary, including violence. Man is also born with envy and hate; it is not something he is taught. The internal struggle these two attributes have to offer will once
... show that criminality and “evil” are not that different, as we tend to define them, but normal human responses that merely become amplified and find a destructive outlet.
Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perptrators. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp.21-50). New York: Guilford press.
middle of paper ... ... Being free of pain is something that we feel within us to be intrinsically joyful, and no reason can be used to explain further why we wish to be joyful, or in good health. These things we just sense, and even a murderer, who rejects morality on the social level, will do whatever he can to avoid the displeasures of his inner being. His sentiments, if only for himself, remain within him. “One thing can always be a reason, why another is desired.