the topic title is a version of a famous quote by Edmund Burke.

in a show i watched, one character was about to be sent back to rwanda to be executed. he was a doctor in rwanda who was asked by military men to set up a shelter for tutsis. when his clinic was packed full of tutsis, the military men came back with even more men and proceeded to slaughter everyone there except the doctor. the doctor had let it happen and didn't do anything (tried to reason with the military men, get help, etc.)

do you think just because one individual did nothing against evil, he should have to face the consequences as if he did an act of evil himself?

That's silly. Burke's quotation refers to men, in the plural. People cannot be held accountable for their inaction, or we would all be guilty of not doing something. Instead of typing on CB, for example, you could go buy a gun and hunt down murderers. But you don't. That doesn't make you responsible for the murders.

Evil is responsible for evil. Period. Apathy is not necessarily a bad thing--note that the sword cuts two ways. If everyone minded their own business, there would be no evil in the world. But if everyone minded each other's business, sure occasionally good people would be able to fight evil, but evil people would also be fighting good. Burke's quote is just as valid the other way around: "All that is needed for good to triumph is for evil men to do nothing."

It's even more ridiculous if you measure inaction that way. I could have taken a plane to India a few years ago and killed Mother Theresa, but I didn't. That doesn't mean that I share in her credit for helping so many of the poor.

people want to save thier necks. and thier necks aren't attached to anyone else's head.

so sticking out your neck to help someone else doesn't make sense.

there's that quote, right?

"first they came for the communists, but i did not speak because i was not a communist"

and then at the end it's

"then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."


if, however, the speaker decided to act, the quote would read something like this:

"first they came for the communists, and although i was not a communist, i spoke for them and they killed me along with the communists."

2+2=5
i love big brother

its the same with a dictatorship; like iraq used to be.

I think that's too extreme. People like MLK Jr and Ghandi spoke out for others and they achieved something those who didn't spoke out couldn't achieve: a small triumph over evil.

It's true, if the bad guys didn't act first, there's no need for the good guys to act, however, this situation is not realistic. There will always be bad guys doing something, so it does take good guys to act to create a semblance of balance.

In my opinion, good and evil are dependent in the sense that if one didn't exist, there is no need for the other.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Aug 2 2005, 06:39 PM

Everything exists on a scale. Nothing is definitavely (sp?) good or evil....unless everyone was equally good or evil, there will always be those two extremes in some sense or another.

Helping and speaking for victims is honorable, but doing nothing does not make you an evil-doer. Everyone is responsible first and foremost for looking after themselves, after that, THEN feel free to go save the world if you feel the need to.

What we're trying to say is, going out of your way to fight evil is a nice thing to do, but not a moral requirement.

it's a legal requirement in some states if you're a doctor and someone is hurt.


2+2=5
i love big brother

... you completely missed my point, so I don't understand yours. I never said anything definites. I said they are dependents. Two completely different points.


It doesn't make you a bad person if you don't try to help, but it does make you irresponsible. Once you're an irresponsible person, all kinds of new vices develop. Vices can easily turn into evil.

In helping others, sometimes, you're helping yourself. The example of MLK Jr I gave says it all. In speaking out for others, he gave hope to others as well as his own. In what way you ask? His posterity now live with a freedom and equality that those in that time could not imagine.


I never said anything about not taking care of yourself first, but since you addressed it, let me say I have always have that view so I agree with what you say here.

There's NO NEED to "save the world", per se, because that's so broad and close to impossible for many of us to make that kind of impact on the world. But, we can always TRY to help our neighbors when there's a need. If you don't help, the impact of their downfall may affect you anyway. In this sense, you brought evil to yourself.



If someone does not believe in doing good because he/she does not like obliging to moral requirements, then think of it in terms of benefits... for yourself. Talking to kids at school about the evils of crime, in general, benefits society. A society with less crime means you're that much safer.

No, it's not a moral requirement, but lets think about it this way. If you are one of these people who do not believe that evil triumphs when good men do nothing.

Tell me, what happens to evil when there's one evil and good men do nothing? My answer: Evil multiplies. What do the rest of you think?

Talking to kids at school violates no one's right. Nosying into other people's business in order to sift out good and evil may very well can.

Also if there is one evil, and everyone else is good and do nothing, evil would not multiply--all the good people would ignore the evil person.

There is no moral reason that good people have to "preempt" evil, so to speak.

Evil can thrive with the young if it is not controlled. If you're a school kid, and someone, lets say your teacher, tells you that bribing is bad and this moral lesson is safely stored, then there is no need for someone else to "nosy" into your business to fix this evil. According to you, the teacher didn't violate anyone's right, but he/she did try to prevent an evil by instilling good.


So you're saying that had no one interfered with Hitler, he wouldn't have continued killing the Jews?


If not for morality then for selfish reasons. If the world go up in flames because I didn't throw water on the small fire, not only did I forgo the chance to try to save the world, I also forgo the chance to save myself.

hitler didn't kill jews. he convinced people to kill jews. if no one could be convinced, would hitler have killed jews?


2+2=5
i love big brother

You tell me, would he? Are you saying that Hitler never killed a Jew on his own? If he is evil and no one stops him from killing Jews because he hates Jews, then he would continue killing because no one stopped him. Thus, evil is multiplied. One evil=one innocent death. Two evil=two innocent deaths... and so on.

Must help with dinner. Be back later... this is interesting.

hitler wanted revenge for WWI, not to kill the jews. so i doubt he would have gone on a solitary crusade against jews.


2+2=5
i love big brother

yes, that would be a fair statement to make. did the king of england hang people himself? no, he had an executioner.

thats not entirely true.

mostly true is good enough.

2+2=5
i love big brother

not even mostly - hitler had an ideal. to achieve this ideal, he needed to conquer the earth. he was operating concentration camps before ww2.

looking at the facts, hitler did not want war, he had not expected the uk & france to react so strongly when he invaded poland.

he had succesfully reoccupied the rhine without consequence, and this was clearly not allowed under the treaty of versailles. he achieved lots of appeasements from britain, and thought that he would be able to push britain far further than they allowed him to.

well, hitler first wanted to control germany, and used anti-semitism to help his rise.

it was a tool to gain support.

big brother is watching
annoyed? vote NO on the referundum for members viewing

... Why not? It would be in his character to. We are talking about Evil aren't we? Evil is capable of anything, especially the kind that kills 'just because'. And since we're both discussion "would have's", anything is possible.


<edited to not sound "snappy" in order to not hurt feelings>

If the King of England order the execution and the one he condemned is guilty, then good had done something to stop the bad, proving that had he not ordered the execution, the guilty--evil--roam free. If the English King order the execution of an innocent, then he is spreading evil. Evil multiplies. Either way, you're proving that I'm correct.

So, which side are you on?

i do not have a "side" in this argument, i think it is silly.

i was merely trying to help point out the flaw in another's argument.

you can interprete that however you like.

I agree.

Statement A: Evil will triumph
Statement B: Good men do nothing.

If A, then B. == If !B, then !A.

If Evil men do nothing, then Good will triumph.

Sounds good to me.

Where is the flaw?

the flaw was that he was not using correct information.he was stating something that simply was not true.

The premises are true, but the conclusion you brought up is very problematic.

While the premises imply a real life consequence--that Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, the conclusion dismisses the "real life" aspect completely by making the assumption that Evil is passively idle. How can Evil be called Evil, when it does nothing?


I see, but what did you mean by "yes, that would be a fair statement to make" when I asked about Hitler?