Is Man Evil?

The Noble Pundit ^ | August 28, 2003 | Chris Noble

[HarleyD]

A few days back I was involved in a discussion about character traits. In my post I'm Selfish, Are You? I mentioned that I don't agree with the rather common position that man is inherently evil. I wanted to expand on why I disagree.

As I mentioned in one of my very first posts on this blog, I tend towards a libertarian political view. Not an anarchist libertarian, but a reasonable one. I want a small government. I want people to leave me alone unless they have good reason to interfere in my life. Sure, it opens me up to more risk, but I believe in the concept in personal responsibility.

One of the corollaries that goes along with the idea that man is inherently evil is that rules and laws have to be used to keep him in line. A lack of rules will naturally lead to anarchy and a society based solely on survival of the fittest.

Now some rules are necessary to keep society functioning properly as there are some evil people in the world. But where does the line get drawn?

If you believe that man is evil you are willing to accept quite a few rules and laws. Proponents of big government usually couch their goal in the rhetoric of protecting the people from unscrupulous charlatans. They argue that big business is evil and that there have to be rules in place to protect the little man.

They ignore the concept of caveat emptor. They act as though people are incapable of taking any step to protect themselves. Man is evil and only government has the key to protect us from the evilness of everyone else.

It's really, in my opinion, a depressing way of viewing the world (and this is coming from someone who is constantly being called an unreformable cynic). It is also directly opposed to my belief that government needs to be smaller.

Now this isn't to say that I believe that man is as pure as the driven snow and therefore rules shouldn't be necessary. To think that man is pure is to completely deny reality.

Rather, man is neutral on whole. Some people are bad, most are good. Good people sometimes do bad things and bad people sometimes do good things. But more importantly, man is smart. Man can analyze a situation and figure out how to take steps to protect himself.

Assuming he's allowed to exercise that kind of personal responsibility. Big government doesn't allow for it.

But why do I keep coming back to this personal responsibility concept? Is it important for something more than just "personal responsibility?"

I think it is. When someone takes responsibility for their own actions, they grow. They become more willing to take risks as they become better able to analyze and respond to the potential problems that they might face. And more importantly, they become more self-sufficient and less likely to look to the government for support.

Small government allows for this to happen. Big government, which is one of the side-effects of the inherently evil position, does not.

It in fact becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Man is evil, so more rules are needed. Man loses the self reliance and personal responsibility that come with freedom. He becomes more dependent on handouts. He becomes lazy. Laziness = evil, which means that we now have to create more rules to stop the slacking. And on and on and on.

I have also never seen any real evidence that man as a whole is evil (if you have some, please post a link to it in the comments). There are some people who are evil. Quite a few. But there have also been quite a few good people, too. Man as a group isn't evil, only some men as individuals.

I can't bring myself to reconcile the idea of man being inherently evil with my libertarian beliefs. The two just don't seem to be able to co-exist as they have fundamentally different approaches to the need for rules. Plus, I just don't like the inherent negativity in the inherently evil approach.

Man is not evil. Just a few individuals.

[HarleyD]

I thought this was rather interesting coming from a libritrian. Arguing man is basically evil seems to fly in the face of conservatism (wanting smaller government).

[catonsville]

Solzhenitsyn said that the line between good and evil runs straight through every man's heart.
We are basically neutral, but can be persuaded to do evil things. It is part of our nature and our limited free will is not strong enough to control our actions.

To be a really good person is hard work, the reason so many of us sink into indifference.

[Seven_0]

1 Tim 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man...

[NeoCaveman]

. Arguing man is basically evil seems to fly in the face of conservatism (wanting smaller government).

I suppose that is one way of looking at it but I look at it more like this.....

Big government can do big evil (genocide, wars, etc.) individuals can do little evils.

Therefor a limited government is needed as a big one will do the biggest evils that lurk in the hearts of men.

[onedoug]

Agreed. Neither inherently evil nor good. But goodness and happiness related, take much more work.

[kingcanuteus]

Jer 17:9

The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

[Arguss]

Is Man evil?

Yes, left to his own devices man will resort to the lowest common denominator.

Just watch Judge Judy

[Warlord David]

Man is a sinner and therefore a slave to sin. We do that which we do not want to do said Paul. Man is evil, like it or not. Even are good, according to our ways is evil and fall short of the glory of God.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

This question reminds me of college days 20 years ago. A Campus Crusader for Christ also a catholic used to ask me the question a lot. I wasn't sure how to answer it.

The Catholic church says that man like all of creation was created good, but that as result of original sin, we have serious defects that will lead to damnation unless we accept God's offer of saving grace through the atoning works of Jesus Christ.

[xzins]

Yes.

And that continually.

[HarleyD]

But if we say man is evil then shouldn't we want more government regulations and oversight?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Interesting:)

Becky

[xzins]

The Lord set up Judges and theocracies and even kings.

He has established the times and locations of nations.

[NOBODY_HERE]

...The Catholic church says that man like all of creation was created good, but that as result of original sin, we have serious defects...

YES - BUT The Catholic Church also says whatever "the Men" leading it want to change it to say...due to man's evil and/or selfishness you can now pay your way out of almost any sin with the Catholic Church.

[Snuffington]

But if we say man is evil then shouldn't we want more government regulations and oversight?

You seem to presume that beings other than men will adminster the government. That seems unlikely.

[DouglasKC]

I thought this was rather interesting coming from a libritrian. Arguing man is basically evil seems to fly in the face of conservatism (wanting smaller government).

This is a rather interesting linkage of topics. I do think man without Goid is evil...or at least evil in God's sight which is ultimately what matters. It doesn't seem correct for some reason to frame the argument as "smaller government belief in peoples goodness" and "larger government = belief in peoples evilness".

I would think that liberals would say that larger government shows a belief in the goodness of people because they think it's good and compassionate to have a large government to provide services.

We know that no matter what kind of form man-based government takes that it doesn't compare with God based government. Man is steadily removing God from government no matter how big or small it gets and this is what leads to evil.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

Re: paying one's way out of sin

FYI,
That's not in the official Catechism of the catholic Church.

I am not trying to convert you but really for the sake of truth at least don't believe such foolishness.

[NOBODY_HERE]

Well... no - it's not the actual Catechism, but doesn't it ever bother you that a 23 year marriage can be "annulled" for the right amount of cash...that an unwed mother could be a parishioner, none-the-less send her child to a Catholic School, for the right price?

It's not the Catechism...but it's becoming the breakdown.
P.S. No conversion necessary - my faith in the Church has just been ROCKED lately. Check my post "Catholic or Capitalist?"

[Talking_Mouse]

...due to man's evil and/or selfishness you can now pay your way out of almost any sin with the Catholic Church.

Jesus paid for my sins. I'm now working on being holy even as my Father in heaven is holy.

YES - BUT The Catholic Church also says whatever "the Men" leading it want to change it to say

Any church can say what the people leading it want to say. The Holy Spirit working through His ministry indwelling the people of God will show them the truth. The Holy Spirit works mightily through the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church. I invite you to read some of what He has inspired them to write. Augustine, a bishop and a canonized saint, wrote The City of God, Thomas Aquinas is a Doctor of the Church and he wrote the Summa Theologica, the current Pope, John Paul II, wrote Ecclesia De Eucharistia On the Eucharist in Relationship to the Church.

[NOBODY_HERE]

I've read a number of the Catholic Churches writings...and I agree they are wonderful. Unfortunately, they are not always necessarily what the Catholic Church are doing at the parish and diocese levels.

Additionally, my questions are not with the Catholic Church of 426 or 1920, but the Catholic Church of today and again the way things are interpreted at the parish/diocese levels.

I will repeat my invitation to see my post "Catholic or Capitalist".