Main Argument
Theodore Dalrymple’s central argument in “The Frivolity of Evil” is that the combination of ideological and socioeconomic barriers is more likely to result in people’s making bad decisions in life, which results in a poor quality of life and unhappiness. According to the author, a person’s evil “is not entirely to be measured by its practical consequences” (Dalrymple 156). This entails that a person, specifically those with criminal tendencies, cannot just pay the price for their crime by serving a sentence at a correctional facility. Instead, a crime has a more profound impact on the individual, their emotional well-being, and their outlook on the world.
Besides, prisoners may often need to remember that they would not find themselves in such a position if they had not committed the crime initially. The author argues that people are “flawed in the heart,” which may lead them to act depravedly (Dalrymple 159). The idea of the innate flaws that some people may possess is linked to the existence of pure evil that leads to harmful deeds and behaviors.
In his central argument, Dalrymple puts the blame on modern society and the government, the flaws of which cause people to live in misery and unhappiness. The author had served as a government doctor in a prison in a slum area in Birmingham for fourteen years, which allowed him to get a closer look at how the government ignores the needs of people. He emphasizes that people living in dire conditions are more likely to engage in harmful behaviors and make choices that are detrimental to their quality of life. When few resources are available to enhance one’s life quality, it is easier for people with criminal tendencies to abandon morality and blame society for their lack of positive life opportunities.
Argument Support
The author provides explicit examples from his experience and lessons from history and literature to support his central argument. One example is a woman choosing not to let her child into the house because her boyfriend does not want children. It shows that a person could abandon their child to seek temporary happiness with an individual who is not a good fit for them. Such an action is described as evil because there is no positive outcome from the choices made by the mother. Moreover, the author implies that the woman made her own choice but will likely blame the decision on others.
Another example is from Dalrymple’s experience with disadvantaged people; one of his patients was a woman who had three children from three different men, all of whom made bad decisions. She left the first father because of domestic violence, the second father “died in an accident when driving a stolen car,” while the third broke up with her a week after the child’s birth (Dalrymple 158). Therefore, she sought temporary shelter at the hospital while trying to find somewhere to live.
Personal Opinion
I agree with Dalrymple’s ideas because it is hard to argue with the fact that evil exists in every human, and it is their circumstances that may encourage adverse decisions and behaviors. For instance, for a home plant to thrive, it needs sunlight, mild temperatures, and regular watering, and it is unreasonable to expect it to stay green when the conditions are overall adverse. Moreover, there are innate personal qualities against which it is impossible to fight.
There may be a pure-hearted person with the inner urge to help others, who may even sacrifice their happiness to make people happy. In contrast, there may be innately evil and crude people who can justify all negative actions and behaviors with personal gain. However, the impact of the environment should never be underestimated because it can either encourage or reduce the likelihood of negative actions and behaviors among people with a tendency to do them.
Reasons to Agree
I agree with the author because people do have the opportunity to make their own decisions. Dalrymple gives examples of women getting themselves into unproductive and toxic relationships with them or leaving children to gain personal happiness. The repetition of bad choices suggests that the women’s environments are conducive to their adverse decisions. Besides, the author mentioned that when he spoke to women about the men they tend to choose, they laughed it off, which proves that they understood their behaviors, proving Dalrymple’s argument right.
Application
The findings of “Frivolity of Evil” can be applied to discussing modern society’s rampant intellectual, social, and political disadvantages. In light of the global economic crisis, many people will find themselves without work and in a negative social position, which may lead to negative behaviors and actions, acknowledging the sociopolitical disaster caused by the government, and taking action to reduce the impact of the disadvantages. Moreover, the economic, social, and ideological pressures and parental examples are likely to cause people to make bad decisions.
Work Cited
Dalrymple, Theodore. “Chapter 11: The Frivolity of Evil.” An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, edited by Jonathan Wolff, Norton, 2017, pp. 155-161.