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?

[Comptine]

yes, insomniac it was the 4400. however, in real life, someone can not simply do a good deed for the rest of his life to make up for his past misdeeds. it's too black and white which is why some of your arguments do not apply to real life. life is not always black and white or so easily separated into good and evil. if it was, we really wouldn't be having this debate.

i meant to write more but when i read it over. it turned into a rant so i cut it out. i mentioned Hitler and the Jews.

zepfel Hitler wanted war. That was why he militarized Germany/the Third Reich again even though it was against the Versailles Treaty. You would not militarize your country unless you planned to use them. Hitler already had a deep seeded resentment towards Jews since his childhood and adolescence. His beloved niece fell in love with a Jew and either ran off with him or committed suicide. He was delaying the war as long as possible to gain the most land without loss of men. sadolakced acid is mostly right about Hitler's world domination plan.

and no it's not silly to say inaction cannot be punished. Guilt by Assocation is the newest trend along with giving minors adult sentences. If two friends were robbing someone and one friend somehow kills the victim, the other friend would be punished for just being there even if he didn't plan to hurt the victim. in this case, he is being punished for his inaction because he COULD of done something like reason with his friend or stopped the robbery to begin with if the other person brought along a deadly weapon. you were there, you had a chance to change it, and you didn't.

[zepfel]

and no it's not silly to say inaction cannot be punished. Guilt by Assocation is the newest trend along with giving minors adult sentences. If two friends were robbing someone and one friend somehow kills the victim, the other friend would be punished for just being there even if he didn't plan to hurt the victim. in this case, he is being punished for his inaction because he COULD of done something like reason with his friend or stopped the robbery to begin with if the other person brought along a deadly weapon. you were there, you had a chance to change it, and you didn't.

what i meant by silly was that i didnt see it as something worth arguing about.

it is not something that could ever have a solid answer. it all depends on the situation.





in addition, it kind of sounded wrong when i said "hitler didn't want war"
what i really meant was that he didn't want it at that particular time but i failed to express my point correctly. i apologise.