Evil by Design vs Evil by Choice

[Dark Muse]

I am currently reading East of Eden right now by Steinbeck, and involved in a discussion of the book, and some one made a comment in regards to the character of Cathy in which they said that becasue she was born evil, it makes it even harder for them to feel sympathy with her, than if she had become the way she was becasue of unfortunate circumstances.

And this is kind of like Frankenstein's Monster vs Dracula.

Most people are inclined to feel sympathetic towards Frankenstein's monster becasue of the fact that he was driven into committing acts of evil becasue of the way in which he was abandoned by his creator, and rejected by soceity for being different and becasue they do not understand what he is.

While there are not many people who seem to be sympathetic towards Dracula becasue he is inherently evil.

But to me this always seemed like backward thinking and I was always the reverse. I did not find Frankenstein's monster to be sympathetic for the very reason that he did have an understanding of right and wrong, and he made the willful choice to harm others out of his anger and anguish. It was within his power and ability to choose not to act as he did.

While on the other hand Dracula is simply acting according to his nature. It is a necessity for him to kill others in order to sustain his own existence. It is not something of which he has a choice in. I see it as being no different than any other predatory animals need to feed upon other animals.

So I cannot help but wonder, why is it that it seems people in general find that those whom by wilful choice act in a way that could be perceived as evil, more deserving, or easier to sympathize with than those whom are born evil and thus have no choice but to act according to thier nature?

[Freudian Monkey]

This is an interesting question. To me this is all about techniques of narration. We aren't meant to symphathice with Dracula because he is the one who is upholding the tension in the novel - he is the force that has to be defeated in order to restore status quo. He is inherently evil because he is designed to portray pure evil. If the reader, for instance, wouldn't find Dracula to be a serious threat, then there would be no tension. On the contrary, the Frankenstein's monster is designed to be a completely different character from Dracula - he is nothing but a product of a man's hybris. The tension of the story is built around the relationship between these two characters and their actions. We can symphathise with the monster because there is someone else who to blaim for breaking the status quo - the doctor himself.

But in a more philosophical sense, you are right - we do not blame a lion for being immoral for killing an infant, because that's what beasts do. I guess in the case of Frankenstein's monster we can't really believe that he is capable of doing that what is right because he doesn't have the possibility to live like a human being should.

[billl]

Maybe it has to do with this: If people had loved Frankenstein, and treated him like a valid person (rather than a tool or toy to be dominated or tossed aside), he might not have wreaked such havok on the people around him. With Dracula, on the other hand: if people are nice and loving towards him, he just uses that to his advantage in destroying them.

So Frankenstein can end up representing us being treated unfairly, while Dracula can represent a sociopathic person with no power for appreciation or empathy, who doesn't deserve the respect the human form might tend to automatically buy him (at least temporarily).

Frankenstein is us, trying out for the cheerleading squad.
Dracula is the a-hole that borrows our notebook and rough draft and never gives them back.

[Scheherazade]

It is also important to remember, I believe, that Frankenstein was not born as a baby and did not grow up within our society, which means he missed opportunities to interact and develop the skills to make the right decisions when faced a crisis. I think that is why Frankenstein is a more sympathetic figure; he's thrown into an alien (even hostile) world without the necessary skills to deal with it.

Dracula, on the otherhand, had the ability to make the right choises. Even though it was in his nature, he could have turned to other sources to deal with his needs.

[Theunderground]

Evil is a pretty subjective concept. But folks should stop putting the blame on circumstances. Your will is strong enough to resist or to do evil with a clean conscience.

[togre]

Evil is a pretty subjective concept. But folks should stop putting the blame on circumstances. Your will is strong enough to resist or to do evil with a clean conscience.

If, when you say "evil is a pretty subjective concept," you mean Many people have differing definitions of evil, I will agree with that.

On that note, I'd like to present the historic Christian understanding of evil and its relation to humanity and the OP.

The Bible defines evil as anything (action, spoken word, or thought/desire) the deviates from the standard of what is good, right and pure. The Bible reveals that God is that standard. Therefore evil is any thought, word or action that goes against God's will.

Ok, well, what is that will? The 10 commandments are generally presented as a summary of God's will. At times the Bible even distills "good" down to these two commands "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc." and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Martin Luther points out that even this second command--love for my neighbor--rests upon my loving obedience to God.

So, the average idea of evil overlaps a great deal with the Bible's idea of evil, especially on the topic of horrible crimes. Maybe the Bible's emphasis on a heart that loves God as a motive for all that is good is a bit at odds. And so is the scope of evil.

Dark Muse accurately reflects a general view of evil as limited to the most grotesque, hurtful and twisted people and actions. The Bible teaches differently. Without softening how horrible and how truly bad evil is, the Bible teaches that all humans are born sinful, that is, born with a heart that desires to disobey God, that is, a heart that is evil.

It sounds shocking, but are we "normal" people really that much different than the monsters? A gang-member sticks a knife in his enemies back in a dark alley--a housewife with verbal knives flays her rival over a cup of tea. A mad dictator brutalizes a nation--a normal eight-year-old pushes around his younger brother. Is there a difference in the heart and motivation? Or only in the scope or size of action?

Getting back to the OP, we all have the potential to be monsters. The distinction you make is imaginary. Inclination or individual preference keeps our evil on a more domestic scale, but at its essence it is no less evil--no less rebellion against God.

Which, I suspect, is why your distinction is so appealing, so commonly believed. If there are bad people and good people who just go bad, then I'm more comfortable. It was Cathy's consistency that made people realize she was evil. She embraced what everyone else had, but was ashamed of, to greater or lesser degrees. Steinbeck wrestled with free will/the ability to resist evil. He is an example of what we'd like to think, that we can control, resist or overcome evil. That's why we are more sympathetic to Frankenstein's monster. We can see ourselves as becoming evil by circumstance and misadventure. We are offended to contemplate or to be told that we are evil, right now and always have been.


PS. There's alot more the Bible says about evil. Not all is germane to this topic, but I hate to leave without mentioning the solution. PM if you want to discuss that. I'll try not to derail the topic.

[cafolini]

Those of us who are born evil need Snickers to get cured.

[Theunderground]

Or knickers in my case.