, , , , , , , , ,

IF WE BELIEVE man is born evil, then the generalized corruption which characterizes human societies is destitute of significance and unworthy of concern, while if we believe he is born good, it represents an inconsistency so poignant as to be tragic. Likewise in connection with the individual: the most void form of evil is that committed by the man who believes there is nothing else; the most tragically moving, that committed by the man who believes he has the power—or (less presumptuous, perhaps) the obligation—to do good. But since, as a rule, neither the life of societies nor the behavior of individuals approaches pure goodness as it has been defined by either religion or philosophy, and since history has little to offer anyone but the enthusiast of injustice and the choreographer of massacres, he who champions the power of the good is forced to ask: in what circumstances would this supposed goodness within man win the freedom to manifest itself? And if these proposed circumstances always differ from present circumstances, is this not as much as to say that man is not capable of doing good after all?