Is Man Evil?

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.