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?

[Spirited Away]

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

... 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.

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

<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?