"The Frivolity Of Evil"
Absolutely brilliant piece by Theodore Dalrymple at City Journal on how any sense of duty in how to live has been eroded into the notion that people have a right to be "happy" that takes precedence over all.
This longing for "happiness" does not comport well with the fact that children thrive in intact families, created by adults who prioritize their role as parents.
I'm not willing to do that (and to be honest, I'm not a big fan of kids), so I've lived for my writing rather than having offspring.
But what I am is a very supportive friend to all my friends with kids whom I see being great mothers to their kids, which often is neither easy nor fun, but it's just what you do to raise people of character who don't just leave a trail of misery in the world like so many Dalrymple describes in his piece.
An excerpt:
This truly is not so much the banality as the frivolity of evil: the elevation of passing pleasure for oneself over the long-term misery of others to whom one owes a duty. What better phrase than the frivolity of evil describes the conduct of a mother who turns her own 14-year-old child out of doors because her latest boyfriend does not want him or her in the house? And what better phrase describes the attitude of those intellectuals who see in this conduct nothing but an extension of human freedom and choice, another thread in life's rich tapestry?The men in these situations also know perfectly well the meaning and consequences of what they are doing. The same day that I saw the patient I have just described, a man aged 25 came into our ward, in need of an operation to remove foil-wrapped packets of cocaine that he had swallowed in order to evade being caught by the police in possession of them. (Had a packet burst, he would have died immediately.) As it happened, he had just left his latest girlfriend--one week after she had given birth to their child. They weren't getting along, he said; he needed his space. Of the child, he thought not for an instant.
I asked him whether he had any other children."Four," he replied.
"How many mothers?"
"Three."
"Do you see any of your children?"
He shook his head. It is supposedly the duty of the doctor not to pass judgment on how his patients have elected to live, but I think I may have raised my eyebrows slightly. At any rate, the patient caught a whiff of my disapproval.
"I know," he said. "I know. Don't tell me."
These words were a complete confession of guilt. I have had hundreds of conversations with men who have abandoned their children in this fashion, and they all know perfectly well what the consequences are for the mother and, more important, for the children. They all know that they are condemning their children to lives of brutality, poverty, abuse, and hopelessness. They tell me so themselves. And yet they do it over and over again, to such an extent that I should guess that nearly a quarter of British children are now brought up this way.
The result is a rising tide of neglect, cruelty, sadism, and joyous malignity that staggers and appalls me. I am more horrified after 14 years than the day I started.
Where does this evil come from? There is obviously something flawed in the heart of man that he should wish to behave in this depraved fashion--the legacy of original sin, to speak metaphorically. But if, not so long ago, such conduct was much less widespread than it is now (in a time of much lesser prosperity, be it remembered by those who think that poverty explains everything), then something more is needed to explain it.A necessary, though not sufficient, condition is the welfare state, which makes it possible, and sometimes advantageous, to behave like this. Just as the IMF is the bank of last resort, encouraging commercial banks to make unwise loans to countries that they know the IMF will bail out, so the state is the parent of last resort--or, more often than not, of first resort. The state, guided by the apparently generous and humane philosophy that no child, whatever its origins, should suffer deprivation, gives assistance to any child, or rather the mother of any child, once it has come into being. In matters of public housing, it is actually advantageous for a mother to put herself at a disadvantage, to be a single mother, without support from the fathers of the children and dependent on the state for income. She is then a priority; she won't pay local taxes, rent, or utility bills.
As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centered, and violent if he doesn't get his own way. The violence escalates and becomes a habit. A spoiled brat becomes an evil tyrant.
But if the welfare state is a necessary condition for the spread of evil, it is not sufficient. After all, the British welfare state is neither the most extensive nor the most generous in the world, and yet our rates of social pathology--public drunkenness, drug-taking, teenage pregnancy, venereal disease, hooliganism, criminality--are the highest in the world. Something more was necessary to produce this result....Here we enter the realm of culture and ideas. For it is necessary not only to believe that it is economically feasible to behave in the irresponsible and egotistical fashion that I have described, but also to believe that it is morally permissible to do so. And this idea has been peddled by the intellectual elite in Britain for many years, more assiduously than anywhere else, to the extent that it is now taken for granted. There has been a long march not only through the institutions but through the minds of the young. When young people want to praise themselves, they describe themselves as "nonjudgmental." For them, the highest form of morality is amorality.
There has been an unholy alliance between those on the Left, who believe that man is endowed with rights but no duties, and libertarians on the Right, who believe that consumer choice is the answer to all social questions, an idea eagerly adopted by the Left in precisely those areas where it does not apply. Thus people have a right to bring forth children any way they like, and the children, of course, have the right not to be deprived of anything, at least anything material. How men and women associate and have children is merely a matter of consumer choice, of no more moral consequence than the choice between dark and milk chocolate, and the state must not discriminate among different forms of association and child rearing, even if such non-discrimination has the same effect as British and French neutrality during the Spanish Civil War.
The consequences to the children and to society do not enter into the matter: for in any case it is the function of the state to ameliorate by redistributive taxation the material effects of individual irresponsibility, and to ameliorate the emotional, educational, and spiritual effects by an army of social workers, psychologists, educators, counselors, and the like, who have themselves come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.
So while my patients know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, and worse than wrong, they are encouraged nevertheless to do it by the strong belief that they have the right to do it, because everything is merely a matter of choice. Almost no one in Britain ever publicly challenges this belief. Nor has any politician the courage to demand a withdrawal of the public subsidy that allows the intensifying evil I have seen over the past 14 years--violence, rape, intimidation, cruelty, drug addiction, neglect--to flourish so exuberantly. With 40 percent of children in Britain born out of wedlock, and the proportion still rising, and with divorce the norm rather than the exception, there soon will be no electoral constituency for reversal. It is already deemed to be electoral suicide to advocate it by those who, in their hearts, know that such a reversal is necessary.
Ultimately, the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen. A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomized British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed. The elites cannot even acknowledge what has happened, however obvious it is, for to do so would be to admit their past responsibility for it, and that would make them feel bad. Better that millions should live in wretchedness and squalor than that they should feel bad about themselves--another aspect of the frivolity of evil. Moreover, if members of the elite acknowledged the social disaster brought about by their ideological libertinism, they might feel called upon to place restraints upon their own behavior, for you cannot long demand of others what you balk at doing yourself.
Is crime up though? At least in the US, hasn't it been going down since the 70s?
And since this is about England, in Victorian England they had strict rules about marriage and sexual behaviors... were the streets safer then?
Guess I'm off to look at Google...
NicoleK at August 16, 2020 10:41 PM
Is crime up though? At least in the US, hasn't it been going down since the 70s?
And since this is about England, in Victorian England they had strict rules about marriage and sexual behaviors... were the streets safer then?
Guess I'm off to look at Google...
NicoleK at August 16, 2020 10:41 PM
OK, this page has crime since 1898-2001 but seems to be raw numbers not adjusted for population.
I'm going to compare the murder rate in 1898 to 2001
1898: 328 murders
2001/02 (I guess it's over the academic year?): 891
Hmm, Wikipedia has the population for 1891 and 1901. I'm not being perfectly scientific but this will give us a good estimate: 27,231,229, and 30,072,180
2001: 49,138,831
So for 1898, I will do the rate with both numbers, and we will know it falls somewhere in between:
rate 1: 1.20449944 x 10^-5
rate 2: 1.09070909 x 10^-5
and for 2001:
891 / 49 138 831 = 1.81322995 x 10^-5
Huh, I guess it is higher than in Edwardian England. (Victorian would take more googling which I am not up for)
NicoleK at August 16, 2020 10:53 PM
Interesting, sharp and well-argued piece.
Dalrymple is a medical man. I'd be curious whether he agrees with me that irresponsible reproduction and lack of proper child-raising is more corrosive — and costly — to society at large than either smoking or obesity.
Kevin at August 17, 2020 12:46 AM
I note that in the anecdote about the foil-wrapped cocaine packets that the 25-year-old swallowed, we're not talking about someone with a cavalier attitude toward the children he helped bring into the world. We're talking about addiction.
He obviously is experiencing some regret over what he did; the doctor's raised eyebrows spoke volumes to him. He knows full well he's a total fuck-up, but it looks like he can't help himself.
My dad was much the same way. He was a drunk and I saw very little of him and felt no connection to him. When I did see him, I felt that he did have regrets about neglecting his kids, but he was a slave to the booze.
And yes, I get that there are people in this world who think that their personal happiness takes precedence over the rights of their children to be raised in a supportive environment. Amy, in fact, wrote a column about one such woman. She pointed out that if someone has to suffer in this situation, shouldn't it be the LW herself?
But this example is not necessarily a person who is indifferent to the well-being of his own children. We're talking about an addict. It's not the same.
Patrick at August 17, 2020 2:54 AM
The problem is, they are judgmental. They judge, just by a new set of "woke" moral standards. Cancel culture is inherently judgmental, harshly so.
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2020 6:49 AM
Wouldn't the truly significant number be murders per capita? Obviously, the population is higher now.
(Different example: In 18th century England, traveling any great distance meant having to arm yourself heavily or hiring armed bodyguards, because highwaymen were as "common as crows," but nowadays, while carjackings are definitely a problem in England, I haven't heard that they're as common as crows.)
And Patrick, I love your point.
Btw, I was having a weird argument on another forum with people who seemed downright hostile to the idea of warning young people, even indirectly, about the emotional hazards of certain avoidable behaviors - as if a broken heart (as opposed to, say, the disappointment of unrequited love) is somehow good and necessary to become an adult. As one person said, in effect, "man was born to suffer!" I responded, in effect: "oh? So, maybe women who don't want kids still NEED to get pregnant anyway, just because they've always been expected to do that, however miserable it makes them? We're all going to have hardships anyway - why not avoid as many as possible?"
Lenona at August 17, 2020 7:17 AM
Interesting, sharp and well-argued piece.
Dalrymple is a medical man. I'd be curious whether he agrees with me that irresponsible reproduction and lack of proper child-raising is more corrosive — and costly — to society at large than either smoking or obesity.
Kevin at August 17, 2020 12:46 AM
And yet all the liberal solutions like free birth control, and ready access to free abortions apparently aren’t making a dent in the problem.
Could it be that this isn’t a simple problem? Maybe government trying to do too much and step in too quickly with their social welfare solutions actually exacerbates the problem?
When the goal of government is to divide extended families up into little independent work units, to plug holes in various factories and offices across the country with no thought as to what it does to traditional roles of grandparents in both tempering anti social behavior, and providing much needed family centered child care to children whose parents work, what do you expect might happen?
When you get back to Amy’s evolutionary biology views, humans have evolved to live successfully in extended families.
Whatever the successes of certain highly actualized people going it on their own. This is not the norm, nor does it work for about 80 percent of the population.
The government does not, and never will have, any vested interest in your welfare.
Isab at August 17, 2020 8:09 AM
That is a very Russian attitude Lenona. And at least in the Russian's case they've had abusive governments for so long their entire culture has taken on a kind of Stockholm syndrome where a happy life just feels weird to them.
As for the people you were talking with I don't know. Learning from the past failures of others is a good thing. I don't think we all need to hit ourselves in the head with a hammer to know it is a bad idea.
Ben at August 17, 2020 8:21 AM
Lenona, no lesson is learned as well as the one that cost you dearly.
Is crime up though?
It's up over last year. As in way up. Prior to that, it was trending downward.
That is a very Russian attitude
I think that attitude is more attributable to the brutal winter weather and the all too short springs, summers, and falls. Tho having a shitty government doesn't help.
Learning from the past failures of others is a good thing.
That thought came up in my twitter feed after a woman in South Dakota got the business end of a mamma bison.
https://www.eastidahonews.com/2020/08/watch-woman-attacked-by-bison-in-south-dakota/
First, you don't have enough time to make all the mistakes, so you have to learn from others. Additionally, some mistakes are inherently fatal, so it is in best interest to allow others to make those.
Nature wants to kill you. You make it easier for Nature to do her thing if you're dumb as a rock. That woman is exceedingly fortunate to be alive.
Bison were able to hold their own against humans until railroads and repeating rifles came on the scene. They understand what we don't: job one is protecting the young at all costs.
I R A Darth Aggie at August 17, 2020 8:48 AM
Most of the Russians I've met really like a strongman government. They deeply want a paternalistic government that acts like a strong father protecting and guiding his family. I can see how the brutal winters drives them towards a powerful protector. But that also leaves them very open to abusive relationships.
That is why Putin campaigned by riding horses topless. Same with the martial arts stuff. As an American I have few concerns about how physically fit the president is. His job doesn't involve personally protecting me. But for Russians the idea that their leader can protect them by personally wrestling a bear seems to really resonate.
Ben at August 17, 2020 9:34 AM
A great deal of their inability to withstand the onslaught of humans had to do with the ongoing Indian Wars.
William Sherman and Phil Sheridan practiced scorched earth tactics in the Civil War and later against the Native Americans. The bison were the Plains tribes' chief food supply, so they had to be eliminated wholesale in order to subdue the Plains Indians.
I'm sure that the bison could have held their own against the railroads and repeating rifles if they had been hunted only as food for the hunter. Instead, they were slaughtered wholesale in order to deprive the Indians of a food source. Over 4 million buffalo are estimated to have been killed by poachers.
They were shot, skinned, and left to rot in the hot sun; sometimes just shot from a passing train and left to rot. When the Texas legislature proposed outlawing poaching buffalo on Indian lands, Sheridan testified against the bill, arguing the poachers were doing a service and should be given medals.
Sheridan is credited with saying "The only good Indian is a dead Indian," although he denies ever saying it or anything like it.
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2020 9:39 AM
The general argument, made by the other people, was that it's well and good to lecture teens about the physical hazards of x, y, or z, but it's somehow immoral to ALERT teens, even subtly, to the emotional hazards of those same lifestyles - or to tell them to avoid ANY particular fun activity completely. (Aside from a few exceptions, like tobacco or vaping, I suppose.)
Obviously, no teens want to listen to a Debby Downer of any age - or have a list of dos and don'ts stuffed down their throats - but there are many gentle ways for adults to TRY to get the message across. One example I gave of how to be indirect was the following. Pre-COVID, before any big holiday weekend, cops typically would go on the local TV news to warn potential lawbreakers that the cops were going to be on the lookout for drunken drivers. They did not, of course, tell SOBER drivers to stay off the road if possible - on the news, anyway, since it would clearly be outrageously unfair and it would embolden lawbreakers. However, the very fact that they needed to mention potential drunk driving to begin with served as a reminder to sober drivers to think twice before going out - which no doubt made the cops' jobs easier. (As I also mentioned, parents have enough on their plates already, without having to deal with avoidable soap operas or worse, so why shouldn't they try to prevent the worst cases at least, one way or another?)
Lenona at August 17, 2020 9:50 AM
That isn't the Russians then, Lenona. It is standard mild left wing poor parenting. They were giving you the rationalizations, not the real reasons, for their actions. For most it boils down to lazy parenting. Anything where they were worried about getting a push back due to differing cultural values they just don't bother to talk about.
Essentially when they said "man was born to suffer!" they really were saying 'I'd rather let my kids suffer than I have to suffer through an awkward talk. If someone has to suffer better them than me.'
We could then branch off into a discussion about cultural relativism and such, but meh.
Ben at August 17, 2020 11:40 AM
The new religion is the self. One must not be made to feel bad. thus the constant war on standards (of appearance, of behavior, of weight, of parenthood). Standards might make you feel bad if you can't live up to them. This is the origin of "nonjudgemental" being a good thing. Of course lacking standards does not make you happy.
The irony here is that being a good parent and citizen is a source of deep satisfaction. These people can't imagine what it is like to have your grown children prosper and thank you for raising them.
The "woke" thing is a subset of the self-indulgent, who sense their own emptiness and want to prove they are moral in a world they have created that lacks morality. The only thing they can identify is to side with minorities, whether the minorities want their help or not (e.g., 80% of blacks polled do NOT want cops defunded).
cc at August 17, 2020 11:47 AM
Job 5:7 - "Man is born to suffer as surely as the sparks fly upward."
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2020 12:02 PM
Sorry. I somehow forgot to mention that, given how hostile, twisted and judgmental those people were, I suspect most of them were under 25, with no kids. Especially since I don't remember any of them mentioning HAVING kids.
They accused me, angrily, of being anti-sex when, for example, I hinted that parents and teachers should find subtle ways to communicate that one-night PIV stands between TEENS tend to make them feel exploited (whether because of miscommunication or bragging on social media by one of the two parties or hidden cameras) and that, therefore, boys and girls alike should be pressured to avoid them, much in the same way that even European 13-year-olds, at home, aren't typically encouraged to have three drinks with their dinners. (Not to mention the LEGAL hazards when older teens, gay or straight, start to crave the adventure of picking up younger strangers for one-night stands.)
Lenona at August 17, 2020 3:18 PM
And I might as well admit that the line thrown at me wasn't really from the Bible - it was from "The Princess Bride."
"Life is pain. Anyone who says differently is selling something."
But in a way, I thought Job would sound funnier.
Lenona at August 17, 2020 3:39 PM
And now you are into pure Wokeistan. As CC mentioned the extremely judgmental 'non-judgmental' types.
I wouldn't take it too hard or too much to heart. As I said in the other thread the internet is a public place. If they don't parrot the party line they may lose their jobs. Or maybe they are just nutjobs. Who can say these days?
Ben at August 17, 2020 3:41 PM
And I might as well admit, I know that line from reading The Peanuts, not the Bible.
Conan the Grammarian at August 17, 2020 4:57 PM
“Thus people have a right to bring forth children any way they like, and the children, of course, have the right not to be deprived of anything, at least anything material.”
Questions for libertarians:
• Should people have that right?
• Should children have that right?
JD at August 17, 2020 7:56 PM
I love The Princess Bride.
Great cast and wonderful story. Inigo Montoya is a swashbuckler for the ages.
Rob Reiner directing & Mark Knopfler composing. That’s like the Belgium (beer, chocolate, fries, waffles) of filmmaking.
JD at August 17, 2020 8:06 PM
PB SUCKS
Crid at August 20, 2020 2:31 PM
Oh, joy. A story of addiction.
If we could only make drugs more available so this wouldn't happen.
Radwaste at August 20, 2020 2:38 PM
Leave a comment