The Author’s main argument
The article ‘The Frivolity of Evil’ by Dalrymple analyzes the causes of human happiness and misery by expressing his view on the decline in the quality of life in Britain. The author writes on the amount of evil that people are committing in Britain even when no dictatorship is compelling them to engage in the evil. The author’s main argument is that the citizens of Great Britain willingly participated in precipitating their misery. He believes the suffering of people stems from the choice that a person makes about how they choose to live their lives in society rather than being compelled by other factors. The author also believes the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites in the county perpetuates the social dynamics that have contributed to a decline in British society ( Dalrymple, 2004) .
How the author supports his main argument
The author provided evidence to support his central argument regarding human misery including lack of moral responsibility, lack of cultural expectations as well as extreme individualism. He blamed man’s flawed nature, the welfare society as well as the leftist ideology. Dalrymple began by showing the mind of a prisoner who has just been released from prison and who believes he has paid his debt to society. The author thinks the prisoner had a choice not to commit the crime in the same way an individual has an option to choose a different neighborhood ( Dalrymple, 2004) . He compared his life and that of the prisoner in showing how individuals are driven by their own decision to commit evil or live in misery. According to the author, people commit a crime within the scope available to them.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the same time, the author cemented his arguments by comparing the social and political differences between Great Britain and other countries such as Liberia and North Korea. Dalrymple observed that citizens in some states do not have the choice to make a living due to the type of government. However, the countries experienced different levels of living standards based on the option that people take
He also addressed the misconception that believes evil is only something committed by tyrants stating that it all rests on the decision of people. The author assumes all of the crime in modern life within non-tyrannical societies is caused by choice of persons throughout their lives ( Dalrymple, 2004) . The author also provided evidence explaining where evil comes from by stating that the heart of a person is flawed and will always guide an individual into misery. He noted that human crime occurs at every level and in countless ways rather than the large-scale atrocities
Furthermore, the author blamed the welfare state as a condition that makes it possible to behave in a particular manner. This condition guide is guided by the liberal and humane philosophy that no child should suffer deprivation. The welfare state sets a stage for dependency, depression, and selfishness ( Dalrymple, 2004) . As such, the welfare state is considered a necessary condition for the spread of evil, which includes aspects such as hooliganism and drunkenness. The author noted the lack of opposition and disapproval in the welfare state towards behavior that is harmful towards others. The rule enables the conduct responsible for evil in the society by rewarding personal irresponsibility
Discussion of human happiness and misery and Aristotle’s Virtue theory
Dalrymple acknowledged that many people claim to seek happiness but freely choose paths that lead to suffering. He believed happiness could be earned from what a person does and what he wants to achieve. In the argument, Dalrymple stated that a person could achieve happiness by doing what they wish to without minding the consequences ( Dalrymple, 2004) . He mentioned the acts of cruelty and selfishness that individuals perpetuate against others as well as the terrible personal decisions that people take as contributing directly to their misery.
The author’s argument applied to the philosophy of Aristotle when he stated that feeling good about oneself does not equate to doing well. Aristotle’s virtue theory defined happiness as based on an individual. He believed happiness is a central purpose of human life and should be the ultimate end ( Sherman, 1989) . In the same way, Dalrymple argued that virtue could only be achieved by maintaining the balance between two excesses. He believed a person could cultivate their way to happiness based on what they choose to do.
Aristotle also acknowledges that a person’s good or bad fortune can play a role in determining his happiness. For Aristotle, the best way to understand a thing is by looking at its purpose or end goal. He believes a person should have a goal that is an end in itself rather than a means to an end, with happiness being the supreme good for every person ( Sherman, 1989) . As such, aspects such as material circumstances or a person’s place in society can affect the state of joy in an individual. As such, happiness is more a question of virtue than of luck. Dalrymple also related to this theory when he discussed human happiness and misery by stating that the actions of a person contribute to their state of bliss.
Agree or disagree with his argument
Dalrymple in this 2004 journal article expressed his view on the decline in the quality of life and state of happiness in Great Britain. I agree with the author regarding the state of happiness and misery for people in society. A lot of people tend to struggle for the sake of existence and may end up getting suffering in their pursuit of happiness. The author is right in pointing out that individuals are willingly collaborated in their misery and therefore brings pain upon themselves. Instead, an individual is supposed to
However, I have reservations regarding banishing of the welfare state since parties on the right end of the political spectrum can gain from it. A lack of welfare state can set a ground for exploitation and slavery. Therefore, while the welfare state can be blamed in part for the misery affecting people, it can be helpful in some aspects to improve the quality of life of a society.
References
Dalrymple, T. (2004). The Frivolity of Evil. City Journal .
Sherman, N. (1989). The fabric of character: Aristotle's theory of virtue.
