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]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

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.

[Spirited Away]

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.

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?

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

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