for evil to triumph, good men should do nothing Options

[Comptine]

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?

[ComradeRed]

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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

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

[Spirited Away]

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

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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