• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is being neutral in the face of a great evil ethical?

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,462
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?
 
Swing_voter:

Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Once a person has established that something is a "great evil", then it is up to that person to decide whether or not to fight it. Once the decision is made to fight it, then comes the determination of the scale at which to fight it and how "total" the effort will be. Then given the answers to those questions, the final calculation is how best to fight it (methodology). This can be a complicated decision making process, especially when one is faced by multiple "great evils" simultaneously. The decision to fight great evil is a personal one and once made the methods to fight the evil vary widely. One need not pick up a weapon to combat great evil.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?
As a Christian, I can't help but think of what Jesus said on the last night of his earthly life...

"I have said these things to you so that by means of me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation, but take courage! I have conquered the world.” John 16:33

What did Jesus mean by such a comment since he knew he was about to be killed by the world? How did he conquer this world, when it seemed this world had conquered him? He meant he had triumphed over the world by not becoming like it, by not permitting the thinking and actions of unrighteous human society to influence him in any way and by his faith, loyalty, and integrity, Jesus proved that “the ruler of the world,” Satan, had “no hold” on him....more than 60 years after Jesus’ trial, John was inspired to write...

“because everyone who has been born from God conquers the world. And this is the conquest that has conquered the world, our faith. Who can conquer the world? Is it not the one who has faith that Jesus is the Son of God?" 1 John 5:4,5

So my answer is no, by physically fighting evil in this world, we can never win...only by our faith, will evil ever be conquered...faith in God to bring to an end to all evil once and for all time...
 
It is not my obligation to fight. If other people see me as evil for that then so be it. I'll be in my garden meditating.
 
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?

Sometimes a party which has no hope of winning in a war must decide in what position they can do the most good. Switzerland fiercely defended its neutrality in shooting down both Allied and Nazi planes. And despite its military neutrality it was still fiercely anti-Nazi. Later in the war, Allied planes damaged in bombing missions would intentionally fly into Switzerland as a safe zone where their plane would be forced to land, impounded, and they would be held as “prisoners of war” - which usually meant they cooled their heels at a ski resort until their safe release could be arranged. Nazis on the other hand were always destined for a prison/internment camp.
 
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?

Neutrality is a strategic choice designed to keep your people from being slaughtered. It was the most ethical choice they could have made.
 
Is refusing to fight evil ethical, you ask? Ethics is very subjective. Evil is very subjective. Whose standards should I go by? Who gets to make the definitions? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? If I don't have a dog in the fight is it my fight?
 
I would like to think that I would at least attempt to make a difference.
 
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?

Who is the judge to define 'evil'?
 
When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?
I would argue no. Avoiding great evil will always be preferential to engagements which entangles oneself in their wake of destruction.

Now, in reference to your example. One should be willing to defend against a looming danger.
Let us for example contrast North Korea, Saddam's Iraq & Nazi Germany. All undoubtedly ruled by evil.

I struggle though to accept the question of degree of evil as the justified reasoning for a moral imperative to fight or avoid.
In fact, the morality of attacking Germany and not North Korea or hypothetically reconsidering the 2003 invasion of Iraq to me comes down to degree to which there was indeed the seeds of reformation. Germany emerged a different beast, both America and Germany the better for it.
Contrast this to Iraq or Afghanistan. I'd consider neither particularly reformed. No doubt less hellish, but still hellish countries none the less full of great evil. Contrast this still to other post-war countries like Rwanda, far from reformed, but better. America for her noble quest, certainly is not the better for the 2003 Iraq war...(btw, I was pro-war att)

So why not go fight the evil of North Korea even when failing to due so with Nazi Germany would have been equally sinful.
It's simple.
All evil is potentially dangerous, but that is not enough, avoid and only when there is a looming threat should one fight, but this being an important caveat. When you fight, leave no remanent nor peacetime sentiments, fight with absolute zeal.

It might be noted, that is said, as exampled by the fact NK, ISIS, Saddam's Iraq fo 2003 etc etc are all evil directly allowed to stand and fester because those who fought for the moral good failed to be absolute in their victory.
 
Switzerland, Sweden and Portugal were neutral during WWII.

Switzerland and Sweden became safe zones for Nazi Germany were resources could be mined and imported into Germany. Switzerland did a lot of banking for the Nazis.

Switzerland shot down allied planes that violated her airspace.

When a great evil arises, shouldn't you fight it?

Not always.

If one guy is rapeing your sister and you do nothing to stop it then you have committed an immoral act.

If 20 men with AK47s are collectively rapeing your sister and you do nothing to stop it then you have actually acted morally by preserving your own life.

Juat like all ethical decisions, it isn't so cut and dry. You maximize the good and minimize the bad. You don't always get it right. In some cases we have to make judgements with limited information. This is especially the case when making national policy decisions.
 
Is refusing to fight evil ethical, you ask? Ethics is very subjective. Evil is very subjective. Whose standards should I go by? Who gets to make the definitions? If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? If I don't have a dog in the fight is it my fight?
How do you suppose to fight evil? With evil? People have been doing so since the beginning of time and yet evil is as prominent as ever, if not more so...the ONLY way to fight evil is on a personal level, by not allowing yourself to be conquered with evil by becoming the very thing you are fighting against...

"Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good." Romans 12:21
 
How do you suppose to fight evil? With evil? People have been doing so since the beginning of time and yet evil is as prominent as ever, if not more so...the ONLY way to fight evil is on a personal level, by not allowing yourself to be conquered with evil by becoming the very thing you are fighting against...

"Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good." Romans 12:21
so each person decides what is evil and what is not? Most people can rationalize any situation into evil, or not evil. A man cheats on his wife, but he has his reasons. He kills her lover, but he has his reasons. A man might steal, but he has his reasons. One nation goes to war against another nation, but they have their reasons. Millions die in a death camp, but the oppressors feel justified in doing so, because they have their reasons. When evil is left to the individuals to declare, almost any atrocity can be rationalized for those actions. And that is why evil is still with us, because every man and every nation decide for themselves, based on their experiences and prejudices, what is evil and what is not. So I ask again; whose standards do I go by? Is there a religion that I can depend on to define evil properly? Who makes the definitions? Do I assume that my country is always right? Most of the time, if the supposed evil is an international issue, we don't even have enough information to judge, because we can't trust the media. Were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or did we fight for oil?

As Pogo said; we have met the enemy, and he is us.
 
so each person decides what is evil and what is not? Most people can rationalize any situation into evil, or not evil. A man cheats on his wife, but he has his reasons. He kills her lover, but he has his reasons. A man might steal, but he has his reasons. One nation goes to war against another nation, but they have their reasons. Millions die in a death camp, but the oppressors feel justified in doing so, because they have their reasons. When evil is left to the individuals to declare, almost any atrocity can be rationalized for those actions. And that is why evil is still with us, because every man and every nation decide for themselves, based on their experiences and prejudices, what is evil and what is not. So I ask again; whose standards do I go by? Is there a religion that I can depend on to define evil properly? Who makes the definitions? Do I assume that my country is always right? Most of the time, if the supposed evil is an international issue, we don't even have enough information to judge, because we can't trust the media. Were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or did we fight for oil?

As Pogo said; we have met the enemy, and he is us.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”― Friedrich W. Nietzsche
 
Back
Top Bottom